The report, Making Transit Work for Low-Income New Yorkers, is based on findings from a recent CSS survey of 1,653 New York City residents who currently receive SNAP benefits, Cash Assistance, or CityFHEPS housing vouchers. Survey respondents were asked about their experiences with the Fair Fares program, which provides half-priced MTA bus and subway fares to New York City residents, ages 18 to 64, with incomes at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty line.

While the survey shows that Fair Fares is an important support for many households, it also reveals that affordability remains a major challenge. For example, nearly two in three Fair Fares users reported that even with the 50 percent discount, many say they struggle to cover the costs of public transportation. And among the population of New Yorkers already connected to public assistance programs and eligible for the program, more than one in three reported not being enrolled in Fair Fares.

If the program is not reaching the population of New Yorkers already engaged with the public benefits system, it is unlikely to reach the hundreds of thousands of eligible New Yorkers who are not on public assistance – at least not without reforms to how the program is implemented.

“These findings make clear that Fair Fares is not reaching everyone it is designed to serve,“ said David R. Jones, CSS President and CEO. “When eligible New Yorkers are already receiving city or state benefits, no one should have to jump through additional hoops just to afford a bus or subway ride. Public transit is a necessity, not a luxury, for low-income New Yorkers. The city’s public transit system should be a gateway to economic opportunity, not a barrier.”

To address shortcomings in the Fare Fairs program, the report offers several recommendations, including:

Automatic enrollment of New Yorkers who are already determined eligible through programs such as SNAP, Cash Assistance, or CityFHEPS, to significantly increase participation and reduce administrative barriers.
Making Fair Fares free for New Yorkers with incomes under 150 percent of the federal poverty level, recognizing that even half-priced fares can be unaffordable for families facing deep economic hardship.
Making the city’s buses free was supported by two-thirds of public assistance recipients who complained about bus speeds. Free buses would eliminate fare payment at the door, speed up boarding, reduce wait times and make every route faster.
Investments to improve bus and subway reliability and safety – especially in outer-borough communities with limited transit alternatives.

“The Fair Fares program has already proven its value as a transformative program, “ said Rachel Swaner, CSS Vice President for Policy, Research and Advocacy and co-author of the report. “The next step is to ensure that it reaches everyone who needs it and that the cost of getting around the city is no longer a financial strain to New Yorkers who most rely on our mass transit system to get to school, work and everywhere they need to be.”

Survey Methodology: The Making Transit Work report cites data from the 2026 NYC Benefits Survey which was conducted by CSS in partnership with the polling firm Seven Letter Insight.  The survey sample featured 1,653 New Yorkers currently receiving SNAP, Cash Assistance or CityFHEPS housing vouchers, and was conducted between January 7 and February 9, 2026. The margin of error was 2.16 percentage points.  

The Community Service Society of New York (CSS) has worked with and for New Yorkers since 1843 to promote economic opportunity and champion a more equitable city and state. We power change through a strategic combination of research, services, and advocacy to make New York more livable for people facing economic insecurity. www.cssny.org 

Thank you to Speaker Menin, General Welfare Chair Hudson, and Transportation Chair Abreu and to all the Committee members for this opportunity. My name is Rachel Swaner, and I am the Vice President of Policy, Research, and Advocacy at the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), an organization dedicated to helping everyday New Yorkers achieve economic security and well-being, leading to a stronger and more equitable New York.

Fair Fares is one of the city’s most important tools for making New York more affordable. For hundreds of thousands of low-income New Yorkers, it reduces the cost of getting to work, school, medical appointments, and other essential activities.

But our latest research shows that while the program is making a meaningful difference, it is still not reaching everyone who needs it—and for many who are enrolled, the discount is not enough.

In January and February of this year, we surveyed 1,653 New Yorkers receiving SNAP, Cash Assistance, or CityFHEPS—populations that closely overlap with those eligible for Fair Fares. We asked whether they were enrolled in Fair Fares and how the program affects their daily lives.

First, on access: more than one in three respondents did not have Fair Fares.

These are New Yorkers who are already connected to public benefits and interacting with city systems. If the program is not reaching a third of people in this group, it is unlikely to reach the many eligible residents who are not connected to services—at least not without changes to how the program is administered.

Second, on impact: for those who do have Fair Fares, the program is clearly helping.

Nearly all respondents said the discount makes it easier to get around, and more than four in five said it helps them cover other essential expenses like housing, food, and utilities. These are meaningful improvements to people’s ability to manage daily life.

But the data also make clear that the current 50 percent discount is not sufficient.

Sixty-four percent of Fair Fares users told us that even with the discount, it is still hard to afford public transportation when they need it. In other words, even at half price, transit remains out of reach for many of the city’s lowest-income residents.

Respondents reinforced this in their own words. Many called for deeper discounts or for the program to be free entirely. As one Queens rider put it, “Even with half off, it’s 3 bucks a day for a round trip. That’s a lot.” And in the Bronx, one respondent stated it should be “100% free for people receiving any benefits from HRA.”

We also heard about barriers in the application and renewal process. Respondents described the process as lengthy, complicated, and slow, and some reported delays that caused their benefits to lapse.

Taken together, these findings point to two clear priorities.

First, the city should automatically enroll eligible residents in Fair Fares.

Eligibility closely overlaps with programs like SNAP and Cash Assistance, which are administered by the same city agency. New Yorkers should not have to apply separately for benefits they are already known to qualify for. For that reason, we support Intro 0248, which would create a system to automatically enroll individuals in city-created benefit programs. We applaud Chair Hudson for championing this issue.

Second, the city should make transit free for the lowest-income New Yorkers.

Our data show that even a 50 percent discount is not enough for many households struggling to meet basic needs. Expanding Fair Fares to fully cover the cost of transit for those under 150 percent of the federal poverty level would ensure that the program truly meets the needs of the people it is designed to serve.

Fair Fares has already proven its value. The next step is to ensure that it reaches everyone who needs it and that the cost of getting around the city is no longer a barrier to stability and opportunity.

Thank you again for your time, and please reach out to me at rswaner@cssny.org if you have any questions.

A new report from the Community Service Society of New York takes a closer look at gig work across New York State. What we found is that gig work is becoming a core part of how people get by. One in five New Yorkers now earns money through gig platforms, and for half of those workers, it’s their main source of income.

And importantly, not everyone is doing this work at the same rate. Workers of color are more likely to be in the gig economy than white workers, reflecting the same patterns we see across the labor market—higher unemployment, fewer stable job opportunities, and more reliance on unstable, low-security work to make ends meet.

That context matters because it shapes how people experience gig work. When you don’t have other options, you have less room to say no.

What our survey shows is that gig work today is defined less by flexibility and more by control—exercised not by a human boss, but by the app that assigns jobs, sets pay, and tracks how workers are doing.

Concerns About Racialized Ratings Bias Affecting Earnings and Hiring

Nearly four in five gig workers said the app pushes them to work longer hours or at specific times through alerts, bonuses, and other incentives. Seventy percent said the app controls when, where, and how much they work, and 69 percent said they feel constantly monitored while working. The app is always watching, always measuring, always adjusting. That can mean chasing a bonus late into the night, waiting on a street corner for the next order, or worrying that one bad rating could cost you the next day’s pay.

And they’re right to be concerned. Two-thirds of gig workers in our survey said they worry that customer ratings reflect bias based on race, gender, or language. Those ratings directly affect earnings, the jobs they’re offered, and even whether they can keep working at all.

In other words, bias doesn’t just shape how workers are managed, it shapes how much they earn.

For Black workers in particular, this is not a new story. We’ve long seen how discrimination operates in hiring, wages, and workplace discipline. What’s new is that this power is built into apps and systems that workers can’t easily see or challenge.

At the same time, gig workers are dealing with high levels of financial insecurity. Compared to other workers, they are more likely to be in debt, more likely to struggle to make ends meet, and less likely to be able to cover even a $400 emergency expense. 

That combination—financial pressure and control by the app—is what makes this moment so urgent.

The good news is that New York City has already started to act.

In recent years, the city has set minimum pay standards for app-based delivery workers, as well as new protections when workers are removed from the app, requiring companies to give notice and a reason before cutting off someone’s access to work. These are significant steps forward.

The opening of the Deliveristas Hub down by City Hall is another important step forward. Built through years of organizing by Worker’s Justice Project and Los Deliveristas Unidos, the hub gives delivery workers a place to rest, recharge their e-bikes, learn about their rights, and connect with one another—something that’s been missing in a job where workers are often on their own and always moving. These gains reflect sustained organizing by workers themselves.

But the reality is that these policies are still limited, and they don’t yet address the core issue: how platforms use algorithms to control the work itself and the people doing it. 

If gig work is going to remain a major part of New York’s economy—and all signs suggest that it will—then we need to set standards not just for wages, but for how decisions are made, how data is used, and how people are treated. A good start would be for policymakers to establish a statewide regulatory framework addressing algorithmic management that ensures that app-based systems governing pay, discipline, and access to work are subject to enforceable standards of transparency, fairness and accountability.

Right now, companies set the rules, enforce them through systems workers can’t see, and those rules hit hardest for workers already facing economic and racial inequality.

We’ve seen this kind of power before in jobs where Black and Latino workers have long been overrepresented. The tools have just changed.

David R. Jones, Esq., is President and CEO of the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), the leading voice on behalf of low-income New Yorkers for more than 175 years. The views expressed in this column are solely those of the writer. The Urban Agenda is available on CSS’s website: www.cssny.org.

• Impose a 30-day time limit of housing assistance for mixed-status families
• Allow public housing agencies and landlords receiving Section 8 subsidies to impose:
  • a requirement that non-senior adult residents work a minimum number of hours, with some exceptions
  • a time limit on how long a household can remain in the program, after which they would lose their subsidy and be subject to eviction

It is important to understand that these are proposed rules. Presidents and federal agencies may submit rule changes to the Federal Register.

After a proposed rule change is posted, the public has an opportunity to comment. Following the public comment period, the administration and agencies review comments and may or may not submit a final rule. This final rule will explain when and how any changes are to be implemented.

The mixed status family rule change comments were due on April 21st but the two other proposed rule changes are currently in the public comment period until May 1, 2026. For this reason, it is crucial to understand exactly what the administration is proposing.

What is the title of the proposed rule and what agency submitted it?

The rule change is titled, “Establishing Flexibility for Implementation of Work Requirements and Term Limits” and can be found by looking up the Regulation ID Number (RIN): 2501-AE15. The US Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) submitted it on 03/02/2026.
 

What regulations are changed by the proposal?

The proposal alters the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), specifically Title 24, which holds all HUD regulations. Within Title 24, parts 5, 960, 982, and 983, which dictate general HUD rules and waivers, admissions and occupancy rules, Project-based Voucher rules, and Tenant-Based Voucher rules, respectively.
 

Which programs do these rules specifically apply to?

All three of the mentioned program changes would apply to both public housing (Section 9 units) and Housing Choice Voucher or Section 8 (project-based and tenant-based vouchers). This includes:

• any housing owned and operated by a Public Housing Authority (PHA), like the New York Housing Authority (NYCHA) through the Section 9 or Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV) (formerly Section 8)
• units receiving HCV voucher subsidy
  • Project-Based Rental Assistance (PBRA) and Project Based Vouchers (PBV)

(Certain Special Purpose Vouchers are exempt from the proposed rule, such as HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH)).
 

Who would the work requirement rule apply to?

The rule would only apply to residents in the aforementioned programs between the ages of 18 and 61, with some exceptions. The rule would not apply to individuals with disabilities, those who are pregnant, the primary caregiver for a child under six or a family member who has a disability, or an individual enrolled in secondary education.
 

How many hours of work would be required?

The minimum amount of work that could be required is 40 hours per week; however, a housing agency could choose less, or they could choose not to implement this rule at all.
 

Who would the time limit apply to?

All families in the mentioned federal housing programs could be subject to the time limit policy except families whose head of households are elderly (62 years or older) or have a disability.
 

How Would the Time Limit Impact NYCHA?

Figure 1

According to NYCHA's administrative records, the average Section 8 household relies on a voucher for nearly 12 years, while the average public housing household remains in their unit for over 27 years. Forcing families out after just 24 months would not encourage self-sufficiency; rather, it would intentionally manufacture mass displacement, destabilizing thousands of families and neighborhoods across the five boroughs.
 

Does adding a work requirement solve a real problem?

No. 4.6 million households receive federal housing assistance, and more than 60 percent are either over 61 years old or have a disability. In the rest of that “work-able” population, more than 80 percent are employed, and the rest are attending school, caregiving for a family member or are ill. There are times when employed individuals struggle with problems like inconsistent hours or layoffs driven by larger economic factors; punishing these families is only making the situation worse.
 

If everyone is working or in an excluded category, then won’t the work requirements have no impact?

No. Work requirements have been shown to add unnecessary costs to agencies like NYCHA and can cause eligible households to lose their assistance simply due to burdensome paperwork.
 

Are NYCHA Households Working?

Figure 2

The numbers do not justify strict work requirements. Across the roughly 143,000 Public Housing and Section 8 households in NYCHA, nearly 55,000 already contain at least one working adult. Once explicitly exempt populations—such as seniors, individuals with disabilities, caregivers for young children, and enrolled students—are factored in, the pool of non-working, non-exempt adults plummets.

Data from CSS’s 2024 Annual Survey of Housing and Economic Stability further shows that over half of the remaining unemployed group is actively searching for a job, making them fully compliant with HUD's proposed rule.

Ultimately, HUD is threatening to upend the lives of 143,000 families and waste millions in taxpayer dollars just to target fewer than 10,000 households—a microscopic fraction of the tenant base, proving this sweeping mandate is a devastating solution in search of a problem.

Methodology for Figure 2:

The "Exempt" population includes Seniors, Caregivers of young children, Disabled individuals, and enrolled Students. Data was adjusted to prevent the double-counting of employed seniors. Estimates for Student enrollment (7.1%) and Active Job Seekers (51.3% of non-working tenants) were derived directly from the CSS ASHES 2024 NYS Survey. Importantly, this analysis is highly conservative: due to data limitations, we did not attempt to exclude pregnant women or caretakers of disabled adults—both of whom are explicitly exempt under HUD’s proposed rule. This means the true target population is likely even smaller than depicted.

Overview

Small buildings—structures with one to four housing units—are widely distributed across New York City and house a diverse range of residents. One-to-four-unit residential buildings account for over 37 percent of all housing in New York City.^[1] This housing stock is unique in that it is home to some of the wealthiest and some of the lowest-income New Yorkers: the owner of a single-family home and the tenant of an unauthorized basement apartment are both classified as residents of small buildings.

One-to-four-unit buildings are often owner-occupied,^[2] and, in general, homeowners have higher incomes than renters living in unregulated units such as basement apartments.^[3] At the same time, this housing type includes many low-income tenants living in informal or precarious conditions.

These differences shape how residents experience climate risks. Recent extreme weather events have highlighted the particular vulnerabilities of small buildings, as well as the types of mitigation strategies that may help reduce property damage and prevent negative health consequences.

Climate Risks

Flood Risk

Flooding is a growing threat across New York City, but it presents distinct risks in small buildings. Unlike large multifamily developments, small homes often include subgrade space used for housing, making residents of basement apartments particularly vulnerable to stormwater flooding, where the risks of injury or death are especially high.

New York City faces three types of flooding: tidal flooding, caused by high tides; storm surge flooding, which pushes seawater inland during major storms; and stormwater flooding, which occurs when heavy rainfall overwhelms drainage systems. Of these, stormwater flooding poses the most immediate and widespread risk to small buildings because it can occur far from the coastline and often impacts basement units.

Climate change is expected to bring more frequent and intense rainfall. Historically, the city has averaged 16.3 days per year with at least one inch of rainfall, but by the 2080s this could increase to 23.7 days. Annual precipitation is projected to rise by 10 percent by the 2030s and by up to 30 percent by the end of the century. New York City’s sewer system is designed to handle 1.5 to 1.75 inches of rain per hour, depending on the borough. However, storms producing 2.1 inches of rain per hour are expected to occur every five years. The Department of Environmental Protection has identified more than 100 areas that experience chronic stormwater flooding, though only a portion are designated as priority areas for infrastructure investment.

These trends are already producing deadly outcomes. During Hurricane Ida in 2021, 14 New Yorkers died, 11 of them drowning in basement apartments across seven homes—most in low-rise, one-to-four family buildings.^[4] Smaller residences were also disproportionately affected, accounting for 75 percent of damaged buildings despite representing 52 percent of the housing stock.

Coastal flooding presents an additional and growing threat. Sea levels are projected to rise significantly in the coming decades, increasing the frequency and severity of tidal flooding in neighborhoods such as Jamaica Bay, Old Howard Beach, and the Rockaways^[5]—areas where over three-quarters of buildings are small buildings. Despite this, real estate development continues in flood-prone areas: an estimated $3.6 billion worth of one- to three-family homes sold in 2023 are likely to flood before the end of their 30-year mortgage.^[6]

Heat Risk

As an urban metropolis, with extensive paving and limited green space, New York City is warmer than surrounding suburban or rural areas. Projections indicate that extreme heat events will become more frequent, more intense, and longer in duration. Extreme heat is already an increasingly serious and deadly threat in the city, with most heat-related deaths occurring in the home. These risks manifest in distinct ways in small buildings.

In basement and attic apartments—both common in this housing stock—temperature extremes can be difficult to regulate. Basement units may lack adequate ventilation, while attic units often experience excessive heat due to direct sun exposure and poor insulation.

Economic constraints further shape exposure. Low-income tenants in small buildings, particularly those in informal units, may be unable to afford the cost of purchasing or operating air conditioning. As a result, access to cooling does not always translate into use, increasing the risk of heat-related illness during prolonged heat events.

These risks are compounded by neighborhood-level inequities. Many areas with high concentrations of small buildings—such as Bensonhurst, Gravesend, Flatlands, and Canarsie in Brooklyn and Flushing, Jamaica, St. Albans, Cambria Heights, and Laurelton in Queens—also rank among the city’s most heat-vulnerable communities on the NYC Heat Vulnerability Index, reflecting longstanding patterns of disinvestment and limited access to green space.

Structural & Social Vulnerabilities

Small residential buildings frequently include subgrade or top-floor spaces used for housing, commonly known as basement and attic apartments. These units are especially vulnerable to both flooding and extreme heat, creating significant risks for residents.

Basement apartments are particularly susceptible to stormwater flooding, which can occur quickly and with little warning. Many such units lack adequate drainage, egress, or flood protection, increasing the risk of injury or death during extreme weather events. Of all the New York City single-story buildings that will likely be inundated by extreme rainfall flooding, nearly 93,528 (45 percent) have a subgrade space,^[7] some of which are likely unregulated basement apartments.

Attic apartments present a different but related set of risks. Because they often do not meet safety codes for occupancy, these units—and the people who live in them—are not always captured in the City’s official housing statistics. However, certain characteristics are common. These units often lack proper insulation and ventilation and are exposed to more direct sunlight, making them especially susceptible to extreme heat in the summer. As a result, residents may face heightened risk of heat-related illness or death during sustained heat waves.

Although precise numbers are difficult to determine,^[8] estimates suggest that 300,000 to 500,000 New Yorkers live in basement or attic apartments, with the highest concentrations in Eastern Brooklyn and Queens.^[9][10] These units are more likely to house recent immigrants, low-income households, and other socially vulnerable populations, further compounding climate risks in this housing stock.

Mitigation Opportunities

For Property Owners

Accessory Dwelling Units

As Mayor Adams’ City of Yes for Housing Opportunity plan is implemented, property owners will have expanded opportunities to create Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), including through the legalization of existing basement and attic apartments as well as the construction of new backyard units on residential lots.

For small buildings, this policy is particularly relevant to basement and attic units, which are already widely used for housing but often exist outside of code compliance. Bringing these units into compliance can improve safety by reducing flood risk, improving ventilation and insulation, and ensuring adequate egress. Simultaneously, the creation of new, code-compliant ADUs offers a pathway to expand the housing supply without introducing the same level of climate vulnerability associated with subgrade units.

Legalization and new construction together may also improve the City’s ability to identify and support households living in small buildings, particularly those currently residing in informal units.

Flood Alarms

Existing basement apartments that remain out of code compliance will continue to remain susceptible to flooding. Flood alarms—similar to smoke detectors—can provide early warning when water is detected, giving residents more time to evacuate. These relatively low-cost devices could help reduce injury and loss of life, particularly in basement units. A city-supported program could expand access to flood alarms as an interim safety measure for residents in vulnerable units, particularly where property owners can demonstrate progress toward bringing those units into compliance.

Ventilation and Air Conditioning

Access to air conditioning is critical to preventing heat-related illness and death, but cost remains a barrier for many households in small buildings, particularly for low-income tenants responsible for their own electricity.^[11] Residents in basement and attic units may face additional financial burdens because physical constraints—such as limited window access, poor insulation, and high heat exposure—can make cooling systems less effective and more expensive to operate. The state’s Heat and Energy Assistance Program (HEAP) Cooling Assistance Program helps offset the cost of purchasing and installing air conditioning units, with up to $1,000 per year for low-income households. However, funding is limited and distributed on a first-come, first-served basis; and the program does not provide ongoing financial assistance toward electricity costs.

At the city level, a new law will require property owners to provide air conditioning units for tenants who request them. However, tenants will remain responsible for electricity costs; and some tenants may see their rent increase slightly to cover the cost. Full implementation will not occur until 2030, leaving several summers before tenants can reap the cooling benefits of the law.

For Government

Infrastructure Investment

New York City’s sewer system does not have the capacity to handle projected increases in stormwater. As a result, flooding is expected to become more frequent in neighborhoods across the city, including areas with high concentrations of small buildings. Upgrading this infrastructure is essential but costly and time intensive.

Complementary investments in green infrastructure—such as rain gardens, permeable pavement, and expanded tree cover—can help absorb stormwater before it enters the sewer system while also reducing neighborhood temperatures. These strategies are particularly important in areas with many small buildings, where residents rely on surrounding infrastructure to mitigate both flooding and heat.

Funding for Resilient Acquisitions/Buyouts

Buyout programs can provide a pathway for homeowners in the most flood-prone areas to relocate and reduce long-term exposure to risk. Following Superstorm Sandy in 2012, New York State implemented voluntary buyouts in heavily impacted neighborhoods. In Oakwood, Staten Island, where most of the properties were small buildings, 99 percent of the residents opted to participate in the buyout program.^[12] The cleared areas where their homes once stood would create a buffer zone that might make the rest of Staten Island safer.

Some local efforts to revive acquisition programs are underway, but they remain in early stages and lack dedicated funding. Expanding and reinstating buyout programs would provide an important option for homeowners in the most vulnerable areas (e.g., South Ozone Park in Queens, East New York in Brooklyn), particularly where repeated flooding makes long-term habitation unsafe.

Financing and Capital Support for Homeowners

Small buildings are often owner-occupied or operated by small landlords with limited access to capital for flood mitigation or post-flood repairs. Existing city and state programs provide grants and low-interest loans to support improvements such as floodproofing, insulation, and energy-efficient systems.

At the state level, the Resilient Retrofits program provides grants and low-interest loans to low- and moderate-income homeowners living in flood prone areas for projects such as sealing below-grade space, improving insulation, and upgrading heating and cooling systems with heat pumps. At the city level, programs such as HomeFix provide financing to homeowners of one-to-four-family homes for repairs and upgrades, such as for energy efficiency. The forgivable loans can be used to improve conditions in the home that can affect the health and safety of the people that live there.

Expanding access to these programs—and ensuring small building owners are aware of them—will be critical to reducing climate risk in this housing stock, which requires policies and investments that reflect the realities of building form, informality, and limited resources.
 

Explore climate risks by housing type

This post is part of our 2026 Earth Week series Climate Change and New York City's Housing Stock. View other posts in this series on rent-stabilized housing, subsidized housing, and public housing.

Notes

1. In NYC, there 3.7 million housing units, of which 1.4 million are in one-to-four-unit buildings. Source: U.S. Census Bureau. “Selected Housing Characteristics.” American Community Survey, ACS 1-Year Estimates Data Profiles, Table DP04.

2. 2023 NYC Housing Vacancy Survey: Selected Initial Findings, page 7.

3. “Our Fast Analysis of the 2021 New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey.” October 2023. Community Service Society of New York.

4. Yuan, Ariel et al. “Immediate Injury Deaths Related to the Remnants From Hurricane Ida in New York City, September 1-2, 2021.” Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 18 (2024): e55.

5. Orton, Philip et al. “New York City Panel on Climate Change (NPCC) 2019 Report Chapter 4: Coastal Flooding.” Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 1439 (2019): 95-114.

6. “Selling Flood Risk: NYC.” May 2024. Rebuild by Design.

7. Rosenzweig, Bernice et al. New York City Panel on Climate Change 4 (NPCC4): Climate Change and New York City's Flood Risk. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 1539 (2024): 127–184.

8. Lander, Brad. “Bringing Basement Apartments into the Light: Establishing a NYC Basement Board to Provide Basic Rights, Responsibilities, and Protections for Basement Apartment Residents and Owners.” August 2022. 

9. “New York’s Housing Underground: A Refuge and Resource.” March 2008. Pratt Center for Community Development and Chhaya Community Development Corporation.

10. Basements Data Dashboard by Pratt Center for Community Development. March 2022.

11. “Protecting New Yorkers from Extreme Heat.” September 2020. NYC Environment & Health Data Portal by the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

12. Salles, Joaquim. “Left Behind: What life is like for the last residents of Staten Island’s Oakwood Beach.” September 21, 2022.

Overview

New York City has the nation’s largest public housing stock, with over 177,569 units managed by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) across the five boroughs. Like much of public housing in the United States, many NYCHA developments were built near polluted sites,^[1] exposing residents to long-standing environmental health risks. NYCHA housing serves predominantly low-income New Yorkers, including large numbers of seniors, people with disabilities, and people of color—many of whom already face significant health and economic vulnerabilities.

Climate change is expected to exacerbate these conditions. Post-Superstorm Sandy analyses suggest that low-income residents will bear a disproportionate share of climate-related impacts.^[2] More extreme weather, rising temperatures, and sea level rise may increase physical injury and mental distress; worsen air pollution, allergens, pests, and ground-level ozone; and lead to more heat-related illness and death. While the precise impacts will continue to evolve, already health-burdened, low-income communities are likely to face increasingly severe consequences as climate change intensifies.

Climate Risks

Flood Risk

Many of New York’s public housing units were constructed near the then-industrial waterfront on cheap land, often to house New Yorkers displaced by “urban renewal” projects. Because of this legacy, many NYCHA developments are currently located in low-lying coastal areas and face significant flood risk. There are 921 NYCHA buildings in the 100-year flood zone, representing approximately 38 percent of all NYCHA buildings. An additional 897 NYCHA buildings are at risk of being inundated by extreme rainfall over the coming decades.

Geographically, 36 percent of NYCHA developments sit within a quarter mile of the shoreline, with major concentrations in the Rockaways, near the Brooklyn Navy Yard, in Brooklyn neighborhoods of Gowanus and Red Hook, and in Lower Manhattan.

Because NYCHA buildings are overrepresented along the waterfront, they are at high risk for both coastal flooding—including storm surge—and inland stormwater flooding caused by heavy rainfall overwhelming draining systems. Rainfall patterns are becoming more uneven and intense, and impacts vary based on drainage capacity, groundwater conditions, and local topography. These risks are compounded by the aging infrastructure of NYCHA buildings, given the lack of attention and federal funding for maintenance.

Climate change is expected to bring more frequent and intense rainfall events. Historically, New York City has averaged 16.3 days per year with at least one inch of rainfall; by the 2080s, this could reach up to 23.7 days. Annual precipitation is projected to rise by 10 percent by the 2030s and by up to 30 percent by the 2100s. Under current extreme rainfall scenarios, over 200,000 buildings citywide could be inundated by flooding, including 30 percent of all NYCHA buildings.

These risks are already evident in specific communities. The Rockaway Peninsula in Queens, for example, is geographically isolated and highly exposed, surrounded by water on both sides and facing ongoing threats from coastal storms and sea level rise. Jamaica Bay, to the north, was once a dumping ground for raw sewage, while the ocean shoreline to the south remains under constant threat from hurricanes and other major storms. Public housing developments in this area were already in poor condition prior to Superstorm Sandy and experienced severe damage during the storm. Recovery has been uneven, with more gentrified areas receiving substantial reinvestment while others—particularly those home to predominantly Black and Latino public housing residents—have taken far longer to recover.

As measured by census tract data, the Rockaway Peninsula is near the 100th percentile nationally for extreme flood risk due to projected sea level rise by 2050. Public housing communities in this area are especially vulnerable to climate impacts. NYCHA’s Beach Channel Drive, for example is located in a census tract within the 90th percentile of the U.S. Climate Vulnerability Index. This ranking reflects multiple compounding factors, including flood exposure; high rates of self-reported poor physical and mental health; elevated levels of toxic air pollution, black carbon, and emissions from nearby industrial facilities; and, lower life expectancy. These conditions are also present in neighboring developments such as Hammels and Carleton Manor.

Similarly, public housing developments along the East River in Lower Manhattan house tens of thousands of residents in areas that remain at high risk of storm surge and flooding. From Jacob Riis Houses in Alphabet City to Smith Houses in the Two Bridges neighborhood, at least 22,500 Lower East Side residents are at exceedingly high risk of flood exposure. While much of Lower Manhattan hovers around the 20th percentile of the U.S. Climate Vulnerability Index, census tracts with high concentrations of public housing along the East River average closer to the 80th percentile.

Although flooding is a concern across southern Manhattan, public housing developments are especially vulnerable due to disparities in infrastructure investment and available services. This pattern extends to NYCHA developments across the city. Click here to view an overlay of NYCHA developments and floodplains.

Heat Risk

Extreme heat is an increasingly serious and deadly threat in New York City, with most heat-related deaths occurring in the home. NYCHA residents—who are more likely to be low-income, older, or living with disabilities—face heightened exposure to heat-related illness and death.

Access to air conditioning varies across the city, and neighborhoods with the highest rates of homes lacking functioning air conditioning often include large public housing populations. The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) tracks self-reported rates of function air conditioning across the city. In several community districts in the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens with significant public housing populations—including areas such as Morrisania, Brownsville, and the Rockaways—significant shares of households lack adequate cooling, placing thousands of NYCHA residents at risk during extreme heat events.

At the same time, the physical design of public housing creates both challenges and advantages. Many NYCHA developments follow a “tower-in-the-park” model, with substantial open space and tree canopy. These features can help mitigate the urban heat island effect, and in some cases, NYCHA campuses are measurably cooler than surrounding neighborhoods. Satellite-based temperature data suggests that some developments experience lower surface temperatures than nearby built-up areas.^[3]

However, these relative differences do not eliminate danger. Absolute temperatures during heat waves remain dangerously high, and outdoor cooling effects do not translate into safe indoor conditions. Access to reliable cooling—particularly air conditioning—remains critical.

Widespread air conditioning use during extreme heat can also strain the electrical grid, increasing the likelihood of outages. When outages occur, the consequences can be severe. Many NYCHA residents rely on elevators to access their homes, and outages can leave residents—particularly older adults and people with disabilities—unable to leave their apartments or reach cooling centers. In these conditions, heat exposure can quickly become life-threatening.

Structural & Social Vulnerabilities

NYCHA houses a disproportionately large share of residents with characteristics that increase exposure to climate-related harm. Approximately 110,000 residents are children, and 77,000 are seniors. Thirteen percent of residents are people under 65 living with disabilities—nearly double the citywide average of 7.3 percent.

The population characteristics intersect with existing building conditions to heighten risk. Many developments have long-standing issues such as high concentrations of lead, mold, and other harmful pollutants in public housing, as detailed in the July 2024 Community Service Society report, The Other Housing Crisis,^[4]contributing to elevated rates of asthma and other chronic health conditions. As a result, residents are more likely to have underlying health needs that can be worsened by extreme heat, flooding, and prolonged utility outages.

Mobility constraints further shape how residents experience climate events. More than 31,000 NYCHA residents have mobility impairments^[5] and more than 75,500 are seniors,^[6] and many rely on elevators to access their homes. Power outages—particularly during extreme heat—can therefore have cascading effects, leaving residents unable to leave their apartments, reach cooling centers, or access medical care. Lacking capital, NYCHA has continued to repair and maintain mechanical systems that reflect the technologies available at the time of their original construction.

Building systems also contribute to exposure. Most NYCHA apartments (92 percent) are heated by a natural gas and/or oil-fueled steam system, an early 20th century technology that is both less efficient and much more difficult to control than modern systems. These systems are inefficient, difficult to regulate, and often result in both overheating in winter and inadequate temperature control overall. Many buildings also suffer from poor insulation and thermal bridging, making it difficult to maintain safe indoor temperatures and increasing energy use.

Research shows that power outages in public housing are both frequent and prolonged.^[7] During extremely hot weather, when demand on the electrical grid is highest, NYCHA developments saw on average more than 12 hours of elevator outages, particularly in senior housing. In these conditions, residents may become effectively trapped in their high-rise apartments, increasingly the likelihood of heat-related illness or death.

Mitigation Opportunities

Preparing public housing for the impacts of climate change presents both significant challenges and unique opportunities. Program rules governing Section 9 and Section 8 ensure that residents are protected from the displacement that can accompany the gentrifying effects of green upgrades,^[8] but this, combined with chronic underfunding, has limited the resources available for large-scale climate interventions. At the same time, NYCHA’s size and centralized ownership structure create opportunities that are not available in other housing types.

NYCHA has made measurable progress in advancing its Sustainability Agenda through electrification pilots, heat pumps, solar power expansion, weatherization, and roof replacements, contributing to a 17 percent reduction in annual greenhouse gas emissions, as well as improved building performance and stronger defenses against water intrusion. However, many current preservation efforts, particularly through the PACT program, do not consistently deliver the deep energy retrofits needed to meaningfully reduce emissions and improve long-term resilience.

Addressing procurement and delivery constraints

Existing state and federal procurement rules put limitations on whom housing authorities can contract with for construction work and on how they determine which contractors to select. The state specifically has a rule requiring the splitting of design and construction work into separate contracts, which makes the process slow, costly, and inefficient. Reforms such as the Public Housing Procurement Reform Act (A.3965/S.6672) would authorize a Progressive Design-Build authority, allowing agencies to integrate planning, design, and construction into a single process. This reform could help reduce costs and accelerate urgently needed retrofits.

Tackling financing constraints and misalignment

NYCHA’s ability to mitigate climate risk is shaped not only by its own planning, but by how it fits within broader city and state financing systems. New York City’s climate budgeting framework^[9] creates a pathway to prioritize investments based on emissions reduction, and public housing—given its age and inefficiency—offers some of the highest potential returns. However, NYCHA is not yet fully integrated into this framework and risks being left out of capital prioritization decisions.

This misalignment extends to existing decarbonization funding streams. Under Local Law 97, the Affordable Housing Reinvestment Fund allows private building owners to comply with emissions limits by purchasing carbon offsets that fund retrofits in affordable housing. However, the program is constrained by a cap that limits offsets to 10 percent of a building’s emissions. This restricts the overall pool of funding and makes it difficult to finance the large, upfront, campus-wide upgrades required in public housing. As a result, funding tends to flow toward smaller, lower-cost projects in privately owned buildings rather than the more complex and capital-intensive work required in NYCHA developments.

Taking Advantage of NYCHA’s Scale

Legislative proposals such as the Green New Deal for Public Housing (S.6674), which would require deep energy retrofits to International Passive House standards that can save more than 70 percent in heating and cooling costs, point to a pathway for aligning climate and housing policy at scale.

Addressing the magnitude of need in public housing will require sustained capital investment. However, existing state programs are often not structured to meet these needs. For example, the Clean Energy Initiative (CEI), which funds building electrification and efficiency upgrades, relies on per-unit funding caps that do not reflect the true cost of retrofitting large, aging public housing developments. As a result, these programs are often difficult for NYCHA to access or insufficient to support comprehensive upgrades. To effectively address climate risks—including flooding, extreme heat, and ongoing building deterioration—public housing must be fully integrated into these existing funding and policy frameworks, rather than treated as a separate or secondary priority.

While New York City has committed significant resources to public housing, current capital strategies ignore avenues for further advancement. As utilized in the state legislature’s Green New Deal for Public Housing, NYCHA has a great advantage in its massive scale. One of the biggest problems in terms of financing green preservation is the math rarely adds up when it comes to the costs of capital, materials, and work when doing each project one-by-one. (This is why most green retrofits involve one-off projects for wealthy clients.) NYCHA’s scale, consistent typology, and repair needs provide the perfect opportunity to not only combine contracts but to create markets, driving innovation in the sector. The Climate and Community Institute and New York Policy Forum’s February 2026 policy report, “The Case for City-led Housing Retrofits in New York City”^[10] laid out how New York City could pool retrofit projects for more efficient procurement of green retrofits. NYCHA could be the base of such a plan, lowering per-unit costs and driving innovation that will help future-proof homes across the city.

Investing in open space

Targeted investments in public housing open space could also play a role in climate mitigation. NYCHA’s extensive open space presents an opportunity to expand green infrastructure—such as rain gardens and permeable surfaces—to manage stormwater and reduce neighborhood heat.
 

Explore climate risks by housing type

This post is part of our 2026 Earth Week series Climate Change and New York City's Housing Stock. View other posts in this series on rent-stabilized housing, subsidized housing, and small buildings.

Notes

1. Angela Caputo and Sharon Lerner, “House poor, pollution rich.” AMPreports, January, 2021.

2. Tracey Ross, “A Disaster in the Making: Addressing the Vulnerability of Low-Income Communities to Extreme Weather.” Center for American Progress, August, 2023.

3. New York City Council Data Team, NYC Heat Map (Surface Temperature).

4. Oksana Mironova, Lonnie Portis, Samuel Stein, and Iziah Thompson. "The Other Housing Crisis: Poor Housing Conditions Are Not Only a NYCHA Problem—They’re a Low-Income Housing Problem,” Community Service Society of New York, July 2024.

5. NYCHA, “PRESS RELEASE: MAYOR ADAMS, GOVERNOR HOCHUL, NYCHA UNDERTAKE EFFORT TO REPLACE ELEVATORS IN DEVELOPMENTS SERVING NEARLY 34,000 RESIDENTS,” January, 2023.

6. NYCHA Resident Data Book, January, 2025.

7. Nina M. Flores, Diana Hernández, Carolyn A. Fahey, Lonnie J. Portis, and Joan A. Casey. “Assessing the Burden of Electrical, Elevator, Heat, Hot Water, and Water Service Interruptions in New York City Public Housing,” September 2024, Journal of Urban Health, 101: 990-999.

8. Jesse M Keenan, Thomas Hill, and Anurag Gumber, “Climate gentrification: from theory to empiricism in Miami-Dade County, Florida,” Environmental Research Letters. 13 (2018): 054001.

9. New York City Climate Budgeting, 2026.

10. Julie Wagner, “The Case for City-led Housing Retrofits in New York City,” The Climate and Community Institute and New York Policy Forum, February 2026.

Overview

Nearly 127,700 New Yorkers earning under 50 percent of Area Median Income live in apartments that receive federal, state, or local subsidies.^[1] This category encompasses a wide range of building types and development histories.

Mid-20th century developments, such as Mitchell-Lama rentals and project-based Section 8 buildings, were constructed as large campus-style affordable housing complexes. Later, in the mid-1980s and 1990s, community development corporations and emerging for-profit affordable housing developers converted tenements and older mid-rise apartment buildings into affordable housing using the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program. Since then, continued public investment has supported both new construction and preservation efforts across the city.

Climate Risks

Flood Risk

Subsidized housing is exposed to multiple forms of flooding, each of which is intensifying with climate change.

Tidal flooding already affects low-lying neighborhoods with large concentrations of subsidized housing, including the Rockaways and Coney Island.^[2] In a recent five-year risk assessment, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene identified tidal flooding as a top public health threat that is being exacerbated by sea level rise.^[3]

Coastal storm surges from extreme weather events are less frequent but more destructive, and subsidized housing has borne heavy impacts. For example, Superstorm Sandy in 2012 severely damaged Ocean Towers, a Mitchell-Lama rental in Coney Island, requiring a $50 million rehabilitation in the aftermath of the storm.^[4]

Stormwater flooding—caused when the heavy rains overwhelm the city’s aging water drainage systems—is increasing in frequency and severity. Unlike tidal floods and coastal storm surges, stormwater flooding can occur in neighborhoods that are far from the coast, affecting New Yorkers across a much wider swath of the city.^[5]

Despite these growing risks, new construction in flood-prone areas has continued at a rapid pace. A 2022 NYC Comptroller report found that market-rate real estate values in the 100-year floodplain have risen to over $176 billion, a 44 percent increase since Superstorm Sandy.^[6] Coney Island alone has added nearly 2,000 new apartments since the storm, all within the city’s floodplain.^[7] Much of new development in the neighborhood is driven by a 2009, Bloomberg-era, rezoning, which created the capacity for 4,500 new apartments, including around 1,000 city-subsidized units.^[8]

While some new coastal developments include climate-mitigating features—such as the geothermal heating and cooling system in a new luxury rental on Surf Avenue—all the new rentals are likely to be impacted by persistent flooding during high tides in the next 60 years.^[9] Affordable housing construction, which is highly dependent on private market development, follows the same pattern: the city and state funnel public dollars to private developers, who then build below-market units. New subsidized rentals, like the 446-unit Coney Island Phase I and 183-unit Rockaway Village Apartments, continue to be sited in flood-prone neighborhoods.^[10]

Heat Risk

Heat has proven to be far deadlier to New Yorkers year to year than flooding. On average, 350 people die each year as a result of heat waves, with most deaths occurring at home. Older adults are most vulnerable to heat-related illnesses, but racial inequities also shape outcomes: Black New Yorkers are twice as likely to die from heat-related illnesses as white New Yorkers and are more than twice as likely to live in subsidized housing.^[11]

The City’s Heat Vulnerability Index, which accounts for factors such as daytime surface temperatures and access to air conditioning, illustrates the racialized and class-based inequities in climate change impacts on the city’s neighborhoods.^[12] Neighborhoods with higher shares of Black, Latino, and low-income residents—including East Harlem and the South Bronx—have higher heat vulnerability ratings.^[13] These same neighborhoods were the sites of major urban renewal projects and affordable housing conversions throughout the 20th century and contain sizable shares of subsidized housing.

With longer, more sustained heat waves each summer, access to cooling is increasingly as important as access to heating. Subsidized housing tenants report somewhat better air conditioning access than those in the private rental market.^[14] And policy changes, including new requirements for landlords to provide air conditioning in certain housing types, may improve access to cooling.^[15] Yet in buildings where tenants pay for their own electricity, cost remains a barrier: according to the 2023 NYC Housing Vacancy Survey, one out of five subsidized tenants did not use their air conditioning because of cost, compared to one out of three rent-stabilized tenants.

Structural & Social Vulnerabilities

A building’s age, maintenance history, and location all impact its vulnerability to climate change. Mid-20th century “slum clearance” and urban renewal policies—shaped by racist real estate and banking practices—brought Mitchell-Lama, and later, project-based Section 8 rental developments, to coastal neighborhoods that have become increasingly exposed to flooding because of climate change.^[16] Today, over-reliance on market-driven development continues to push affordable housing into areas with climate risks.

Many subsidized developments include older buildings with limited floodproofing, making them especially vulnerable to building systems breakdowns, utility outages, and mold following extreme weather events.

Many older subsidized buildings are master-metered, meaning the cost of electricity is included in the general operating costs of the building. However, federal austerity measures are threatening the operating budgets of Department of Housing and Urban Development-subsidized developments and programs that provide low-income households with support for heating and cooling.^[17]

Mitigation Opportunities

With sufficient political will, housing subsidies present a powerful lever for advancing environmental sustainability goals.

Campus-scale opportunities

The campus-style typology of some subsidized developments creates opportunities to implement large-scale mitigation strategies that benefit entire neighborhoods. Interventions such as tree planting and pit widening, porous pavement installation, bioswales, rain gardens, and sunken pavement can reduce flood risk for subsidized buildings while also lowering surrounding temperatures.

Large buildings and emissions policy

Because larger multifamily buildings contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, New York has targeted them in climate policy. Local Law 97 (2019) set emissions caps on buildings over 25,000 square feet—a threshold that includes most of the city’s larger subsidized developments. While the law’s compliance period began in 2024, most subsidized buildings are not required to meet the caps until 2035.^[18]

Financing tools and constraints

To offset the costliness of capital projects—such as building electrification or heat pump installation—that will make Local Law 97 compliance possible, there are several city and state tax incentives, as well as loan and grant programs, designed to reduce carbon emissions. For example, an updated J-51R program, currently under consideration by the state’s legislature, would provide a substantial tax break for landlords who make building-wide improvements, while the NYC Accelerator offers long-term, fixed-rate financing for energy efficiency projects and renewable energy installation. In subsidized developments with tight operating budgets and minimal reserves, these upgrades are often bundled together with more basic types of repairs, like façade work or plumbing upgrades.

State-level policy opportunities

More broadly, housing subsidies themselves provide the public with leverage to mandate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed Social Housing Development Authority (SHDA),^[19] for instance, would create a new, statewide public authority with power to both finance social housing conversions and build new, permanently affordable rentals and cooperatives to high levels of environmental sustainability.

The lack of political will remains the primary obstacle to protecting existing subsidized tenants from the harmful impacts of climate change and to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in new affordable housing.
 

Explore climate risks by housing type

This post is part of our 2026 Earth Week series Climate Change and New York City's Housing Stock. View other posts in this series on rent-stabilized housing, public housing, and small buildings.

Notes

1. “Rent Regulation Keeps New York, New York.” Community Service Society of New York, April, 2025.

2. Hernandez, Natalie. “Coney Island residents brace for coastal flooding.” News 12, October 12, 2025.

3. “Jurisdictional Risk Assessment 2024.” New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, June 2025.

4. “Ocean Towers.” New York Housing Conference.

5. NYC Department of Environmental Protection. “2024 Stormwater Analysis.”

6. Lander, Brad. “Ten Years After Sandy Barriers to Resilience.” October 13, 2022.

7. Maldonado, Samantha and Pierre-Louis, Kendra. “Hurricane Sandy Devastated Coney Island 10 Years Ago. So Why Has NYC Added Almost 2,000 Homes to the Area Since?” The City. October 27, 2022.

8. “Coney Island Comprehensive Rezoning Plan.” NYC Economic Development Corporation. January 20, 2009.

9. “NYC Flood Hazard Mapper.” NYC Department of City Planning.

10. “2926 West 19th Street.” L+M Development Partners.

11. “The Urban Heat Island Effect in NYC.” NYC Environmental & Health Data Portal. According to the 2023 NYC Housing Vacancy Survey, white tenants make up 15 percent of subsidized housing residents, while Black tenants account for 37 percent.

12. “Interactive Heat Vulnerability Index.” NYC Environmental & Health Data Portal.

13. Ibid.

14. CSS analysis of the 2023 HVS. 94 percent of subsidized renters reported having an AC or central air, compared to 88% of regulated and market tenants.

15. Venugopal, Arun. “Air conditioning in every NYC apartment? A new law aims to make that happen.” Gothamist. January 23, 2026.

16. “Rising Tides, Rising Costs: Flood Insurance and New York City’s Affordability Crisis.” Center for New York City Neighborhoods. September 2014.

17. Coburn, Jesse. “Millions Could Lose Housing Aid Under Trump Plan.” Pro Publica. September 29, 2025.

18. “Local Law 97 Timeline.” Urban Green Council.

19.  “2025-2026 NYS Legislative Session: Senate Bill S5674.” New York State Senate.

Overview

More low-income households call rent-stabilized apartments home than any other type of housing. Although it is not means-tested or directly subsidized, this housing stock serves 37 percent (434,300 households) of New Yorkers earning less than 50 percent of the Area Median Income. More Black and Latino New Yorkers live in rent-stabilized apartments than any other form of housing.^[1]

While rent stabilization applies to a range of building types, the vast majority of units are located in buildings with more than five apartments built before 1974. These buildings typically lack central air conditioning, and many are located in flood-prone areas, leaving residents exposed to both extreme heat and storm-related hazards.

Climate Risks

Flood Risk

Rent-stabilized apartments are distributed across all five boroughs, with particularly high concentrations in upper Manhattan, the south Bronx, and Central Brooklyn. While they are not as clustered along the waterfront as public housing, some of the neighborhoods with the highest numbers of rent-stabilized apartments–including Washington Heights/Inwood (45,000 units), Highbridge/Concourse (45,000 units), Williamsburg/Greenpoint (27,000 units), and Astoria (31,000 units)—border coastal or flood-prone areas.^[2]

Flood risk is increasing across the city, driven not only by rising sea levels but also by more intense storms and overwhelmed sewer infrastructure, making non-coastal areas subject to periodic flooding. During Superstorm Sandy in 2012, over 40,000 rent-stabilized units across 839 buildings were located within the storm surge zone.^[3] More recently, Hurricane Ida in 2022 demonstrated that flood risk extends far beyond mapped floodplains: fewer than 7 percent of damaged buildings were located within the 100-year floodplain.^[4]

Heavy rainfall is now a major driver of flooding in neighborhoods with significant rent-stabilized housing. Sewer networks in The Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens are designed to handle roughly up to 1.5 inches of rain per hour; Manhattan and Staten Island’s can take in 1.75 inches per hour. The city’s Department of Environmental Protection, however, expects heavier storms in the coming years, with a 20 percent chance each year of storms that rain 2.1 inches of water per hour on our streets and into our over-capacity sewers, producing more floods.^[5]

Heat Risk

Extreme heat is an even more immediate and deadly threat. Each year, more New Yorkers die from heat than from flooding and cold weather combined, with most deaths occurring in the home.^[6]

While all neighborhoods experience heat waves, the urban heat island effect—in which certain city blocks face elevated temperatures due to a lack of trees, shading, and unpaved surfaces—concentrates the danger. According to the City of New York’s Heat Vulnerability Index, which scores neighborhoods on a scale of one to five (with five being the greatest vulnerability), several of the neighborhoods with the highest numbers and concentrations of rent-stabilized apartments–including Inwood, Mount Hope, Hunts Point, Flatbush, Harlem and East Harlem—also rank among the city’s most heat vulnerable areas.^[7]

Structural & Social Vulnerabilities

Rent-stabilized housing combines physical vulnerabilities with economic constraints that shape residents’ ability to respond to climate risks.

While rent-stabilized landlords are required to provide tenants with heat, until 2026, no such requirement related to cooling. Given that most rent-stabilized units are in older buildings without centralized air conditioning, many tenants have purchased their own window units. A new law passed in late 2025 mandates landlords to provide at least one air conditioning unit per apartment beginning in 2030. While the cost of purchase and installation can technically be passed along to rent-stabilized tenants through an Individual Apartment Improvements rent increase, this increase is likely minimal—a few dollars per month—and perhaps not worth the landlords’ trouble to get the increase approved by the state housing agency.

A greater problem, however, might be energy prices for low-income households. According to the 2023 Housing and Vacancy Survey, 34 percent of rent-stabilized households and 36 percent of rent-controlled households (an older and smaller subset of New York’s rent-regulated housing stock) did not use air conditioning because of cost—by far the largest percentage of any housing type in the city. Because most rent-regulated tenants pay for their own electricity, and because so many rent-regulated tenants  are struggling to make ends meet, rising utility rates—such as Con Edison’s recent nine percent electricity rate increase—may further discourage usage.^[8] As more rent-stabilized tenants avoid using their air conditioners because of cost, they may be more likely to suffer the dangerous consequences of extreme heat.

Mitigation Opportunities

Fragmented ownership and scale

The fragmented and predominantly private ownership structure of rent-stabilized housing presents challenges for building-level climate interventions. Nearly 15,000 real estate companies collectively control nearly one million units across more than 40,000 buildings.^[9] Unless they are paired with another subsidy stream or tax break (like J-51), these units are not subsidized, and they are largely owned by for-profit entities.^[10] Given the dispersed and profit-motivated ownership structure, neighborhood-level strategies may be necessary to protect all residents.

Neighborhood-level interventions

Some of these strategies could include tree planting, expanded tree pits, porous pavement installation, bioswales, rain gardens, and sunken pavement, all of which reduce flood risk while also lowering temperatures through increased shade and stormwater absorption. These types of interventions can provide broad protections across entire neighborhoods, regardless of building ownership.

Building-level programs and financing

At the building level, a range of existing city and state programs can finance sustainability investments and upgrades, which are required by the City’s Local Law 97—a landmark law that mandates that large buildings reduce carbon consumption and greenhouse emissions. Available financing and compliance tools to help rent-stabilized landlords upgrade buildings and apartments without imposing rent increases include:

• The expanded J-51 R program, currently under consideration by the state legislature, which offers a substantial tax break for landlords to make building-wide improvements, including those that qualify for Local Law 97 compliance;
• Landlord Ambassadors, which offers up to $50,000 in low-interest loans for emergency repairs and technical assistance, is not accepting new applications at the time of this publication, but will be available in the coming months;
• The Participation Loan Program, which offers 30-year subsidized loans for building-wide rehabilitation;
• The Multifamily Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program, which provides up to $35,000 per unit for upgrading building systems and improving building envelopes;
• The Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program, which offers incentives for installing improved equipment and technology;
• The NYC Accelerator Property Assessed Clean Energy program, which offers long-term fixed-rate financing with no money down for energy efficiency projects and renewable energy installation; and
• The Multifamily Buildings Low-Carbon Pathways Program, which includes incentives for heating, water, and energy upgrades.

Used in combination, these tax incentives and loan programs provide meaningful opportunities to upgrade building systems, improving energy efficiency, and reducing emissions.

Rent stabilization as climate policy

While these public programs and building-level interventions are all essential, rent stabilization itself plays a critical role in climate resilience. Research shows that strong community networks help improve disaster preparedness and response. For example, a study of Hurricane Sandy disaster recovery in New York City shows that while the Lower East Side and the Rockaways were both hit hard by the storm, the deep and long-standing legacy of community organizing on the Lower East Side created the conditions for a better and more equitable recovery.^[11] Rent stabilization goes a long way toward encouraging tenant and community organizing, enabling tenants not only to afford to stay in their homes and communities for the long term, but also to join with their neighbors in collective action without fear of landlord retribution and targeted displacement.^[12]

Rent regulation also protects from displacement linked to necessary climate upgrades. By limiting rent increases, it helps ensure that low-income tenants do not have to solely bear the costs of these upgrades via pass-through charges and steep rent hikes. This enables them to remain in their homes and benefit from improvements, rather than being displaced by them. As the Climate and Community Institute and the Sierra Club have found, “Rent regulations can ensure that the cost of repairs and retrofits are not passed onto tenants. They also ensure that in the wake of disasters, landlords cannot raise rents egregiously, enabling tenants to stay housed. Lastly, rent regulations ensure that neighborhood greening efforts happening adjacent to homes (like parks improvements and expansions of the sidewalk tree canopy) do not exacerbate a cycle of displacement.”^[13]

While rent-stabilized buildings and their neighborhoods require sustained public investment to meet the challenges of climate change, rent stabilization itself remains a central component of any strategy for achieving climate resilience and housing stability.
 

Explore climate risks by housing type

This post is part of our 2026 Earth Week series Climate Change and New York City's Housing Stock. View other posts in this series on subsidized housing, public housing, and small buildings.

Notes

1. “Rent Regulation Keeps New York, New York.” Community Service Society of New York, April, 2025.

2. 2023 HVS data. Note that neighborhoods listed are part of larger Community Districts/ Public Use Microdata Area designations and may include other neighborhoods.

3. NYU Furman Center for Real Estate & Urban Policy and NYU Moelis Institute for Affordable Housing Policy. Sandy’s Effects on Housing in New York City. March, 2013.

4. NYC Community Development Block Grand Disaster Recovery website

5. NYC Department of Environmental Protection. “2024 Stormwater Analysis.”

6. New York City, web “The Urban Heat Island Effect in NYC” published August 20, 2021.

7. NYC Environment & Health Data Portal. “Interactive Heat Vulnerability Index.”

8. Maldonado, Samantha. “Con Ed Wants to Raise Your Bill – Again.” The City, February 11, 2025.

9. Data provided by JustFix based on their “Who Owns What” tool.

10. Non-profit subsidized housing is usually also rent-stabilized. Read about climate change and subsidized housing here.

11. Graham, Leigh, Wim Debucquoy, and Isabelle Anguelovski. "The influence of urban development dynamics on community resilience practice in New York City after Superstorm Sandy: Experiences from the Lower East Side and the Rockaways." Global Environmental Change 40 (2016): 112-124.

12. Prior CSS research has shown that rent-stabilized tenants are more likely to put down roots in their communities compared to market rate tenants. Mironova, Oksana and Samuel Stein. “Stabilizing Renters by Stabilizing Rents” Community Service Society of New York, November 2025.

13. Climate and Community Institute and the Sierra Club. ”Tenant Protections for Climate Justice." October, 2024. For a concrete example of this principle, see the LA Tenant Union’s mobilization to fight rent gauging after the January, 2025 wildfires.

These two crises are not just parallel but intertwined: housing is becoming more expensive and less habitable in part because of climate change, and residential buildings are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions that contribute directly to climate change. As extreme weather events become more frequent and severe, these risks are already shaping where and how New Yorkers can live.

In this series of briefs, we survey the impacts of climate change—particularly flooding and extreme heat—on the city’s housing stock.

We also highlight the strategies needed to protect residents and preserve housing stability in the kinds of housing most low-income New Yorkers call home: rent-stabilized apartments, public housing, subsidized housing, and small (1–4 housing units) buildings—including basement apartments. Based on each housing type's location, physical structure, and policy context, we outline the distinct risks and opportunities.

Explore climate risks by housing type

A new Community Service Society of New York (CSS) report examining gig work across the state found that while it has become a core part of how many New Yorkers generate  income because of its promise of flexibility, workers of color are experiencing many of the same patterns seen across the broader labor market: higher unemployment, fewer stable job opportunities, and reliance on low-security work to make ends meet. 

 Further compounding the situation is that many gig workers are experiencing high levels of financial insecurity compared to other workers and are more likely to be in debt. 

 The report, “Surveilled and Directed: Algorithmic Management and Control in New York’s Gig Economy,” is based on findings from CSS’s 2025 Annual Survey of Housing and Economic Security, which surveyed 4,000 adults statewide between September 9 and October 2, 2025. Twenty percent of respondents reported earning money in the past year through gig platforms. 

 Drawing from the survey findings, the report found that gig work today is defined less by flexibility and more by control – exercised not by a human supervisor, but by the app that assigns jobs, sets pay, and tracks workers’ performance. Workers who depend on these platforms reported high levels of algorithmic management and control. For example: 

•  Nearly four in five gig workers say apps push them to work longer or at specific times, and 70 percent say the app controls when, where, and how much they work. 
• Two-thirds say customer ratings may reflect bias based on race, gender, or language—concerns that are particularly pronounced among workers who depend on platforms for their main income. 
• More than three-quarters say they would feel more secure if the government set rules governing how platforms treat workers 

 New York City has taken important steps to regulate app-based delivery work, including minimum pay standards and procedural protections when workers are removed from the app. However, no statewide framework exists to address algorithmic management. The report urges state policymakers to address this through targeted regulation and oversight in the areas of wage-setting and pay transparency, surveillance and data use, rating systems, due process in deactivation and adverse decisions, and worker representation.  

 “The number of New Yorkers who make ends meet through gig work continues to grow. These workers are not immune to the economic headwinds facing the broader labor market right now, and they largely face them without the safety net of benefits, job security, or many of the same legal protections that traditional employees have," said New York City Council Majority Leader Shaun Abreu. "We must continue to expand those crucial protections, along with more transparency and standards. I support the report’s findings that a statewide framework is needed to strengthen the fairness and rights of the workers that make up 20% of New York’s workforce.”

 “App-based delivery workers deserve fairness and security on the  job, period. DCWP is committed to enforcing NYC’s Delivery Worker Laws – among the strongest protections in the country – without fear or favor,” said NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection Commissioner Sam Levine.  “We applaud CSS for shedding light on these important issues and the barriers hardworking deliveristas face. The platforms profiting from New York labor must provide workers with dignity and pay they deserve.” 

 “As gig work grows and becomes a major feature of New York’s economy, protections meant to govern it are not keeping pace. And that gap is not race‑neutral,” said David R. Jones, President and CEO of CSS. “Black and Latino New Yorkers are significantly more likely than white workers to rely on gig work—mirroring broader labor market inequities like higher rates of unemployment and underemployment. Our state policymakers must strengthen oversight to ensure this rapidly expanding sector does not continue to replicate and deepen longstanding economic disparities.” 

 “Gig work is sold as flexible, but in reality the app is the boss—setting pay, assigning work, and monitoring workers in ways that limit real choice,” said Rachel Swaner, CSS Vice President for Policy, Research, and Advocacy and author of the report. “The issue is this kind of app-based control itself. It’s designed to extract more work from people when they’re already under financial pressure, and we’re starting to see it in more jobs. That makes it all the more important to set clear rules so these systems are fair, transparent, and accountable.”  

 The Community Service Society of New York (CSS) has worked with and for New Yorkers since 1843 to promote economic opportunity and champion an equitable city and state. We power change through a strategic combination of research, services, and advocacy to make New York more livable for people facing economic insecurity. By expanding access to health care, affordable housing, employment opportunities, debt assistance, and more, we make a tangible difference in the lives of millions. Join us at www.cssny.org. 

 ###

As it stands, the database operates with too little transparency, too few safeguards, and too many unanswered questions. Thousands of New Yorkers, disproportionately Black and Latino youth, are included in this system, often without their knowledge, without being charged with a crime, and without a meaningful way to challenge their inclusion. The consequences are real and lasting: increased surveillance, barriers to housing and employment, and, in some cases, devastating impacts on immigration status.

Across the country, we have seen the tragic consequences of people being deported and imprisoned after tattoos were misinterpreted as gang symbols, despite having no criminal record. Consider the case of Neri José Alvarado Borges, a young asylum seeker who was deported to El Salvador and sent to a maximum-security prison not because he committed a crime, but because immigration officials misinterpreted an autism awareness tattoo as evidence of gang affiliation. He had no criminal record. His family and employer described him as a hardworking young man trying to build a life. Yet a subjective judgment about his appearance was enough to strip him of his freedom.

The concerns about the NYPD gang database are not new. In 2023, the Department of Investigation’s Office of the Inspector General for the NYPD issued a sweeping report identifying serious flaws in the database, including vague criteria for inclusion and a troubling lack of public transparency. The report put forward 17 recommendations for reform. A follow-up review released in 2025 found that only some reforms had been fully implemented, with others only partially completed. It also documented ongoing compliance failures, including the department’s failure to implement a multi-level review process to validate or renew entries.

As a candidate, Mayor Zohran Mamdani was against the NYPD gang database. He has recently expressed openness to its use if reforms are implemented. I strongly support this approach. When used responsibly, data can help law enforcement focus resources, prevent violence, and save lives. But the legitimacy of any such tool depends on public trust, and trust cannot exist without transparency and fairness.

The 2025 follow-up report makes clear that the most consequential reforms—those involving transparency, due process, and independent oversight—remain only partially implemented or not implemented at all. The City must commit to fully implementing all of the Inspector General’s recommendations, and doing so with complete transparency.

First and foremost, the criteria for inclusion must be publicly defined, narrowly tailored, and based on credible evidence—not vague associations, social media activity, or subjective interpretation. No young person’s future should be jeopardized because of who they know, what they wear, or how they express themselves.

Second, individuals must be notified if they are added to the database and given a meaningful opportunity to challenge that designation. Due process is not optional, it is a cornerstone of our legal system.

Finally, there must be regular, independent audits to ensure the database is accurate, up-to-date, and free from racial bias.

Reform is not about weakening public safety. It is about strengthening it. A system that is perceived as unjust will not earn the cooperation of the communities most affected by violence. A system that casts too wide a net will dilute its effectiveness. And a system that lacks accountability will ultimately fail.

The Mayor has an opportunity to ensure that the NYPD gang database becomes what it should be: a precise, fair, and transparent tool that helps keep New Yorkers safe without unfairly targeting innocent young people or derailing their futures.

David R. Jones, Esq., is President and CEO of the Community Service Society (CSS), the leading voice on behalf of low-income New Yorkers for more than 175 years, and a member of the MTA Board. The views in this column are solely those of the writer. The New Majority is available on CSS’s website: www.cssny.org.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s opening bid to pay for his ambitious agenda provides the best opportunity in years to tackle property tax reform. The mayor’s gambit provides our elected leaders an opening to finally inject fairness into a system that is a thorn in everyone’s side.

By necessity, Mamdani’s calls for affordability would require property tax reform, and there is every indication the mayor will float a proposal in the days and weeks ahead. Just about everyone involved — real estate barons, small landlords, homeowners, and politicians from both political parties — largely agrees that New York City’s property tax system needs a makeover.

The mayor’s proposals to pay for his agenda appear aimed at forcing the issue. His strategy, which calls for a 9.5 percent increase in property taxes on all NYC real estate or a two percent income tax hike on roughly 34,000 individuals earning more than $1 million annually, is straightforward.  The play is to make tax hikes on high earners more palatable than the broader, extremely unpopular property tax increase.

New York City Council Speaker Julie Menin has already said the property tax proposal is dead on arrival, and last week the City Council countered with a budget proposal that focused on savings from efficiencies and reforms.

Governor Kathy Hochul, who is campaigning for reelection, and the State Legislature, which has a say in any tax hikes, have not fully endorsed the mayor’s tax increase on high earners. However, the specter of Mamdani’s tax proposals may open a pathway for property tax reform that has eluded prior New York City mayors.

Penalizing Poverty and Upholding Racial Disparities

New York City has an unacceptably regressive property tax structure. Reforms should include a combination of abolishing some abatements, increasing levies on vacant land, transitioning to a true-value land tax, and giving tax credits to homeowners and tenants alike.

My organization, the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), has published several studies and polls showing that the current property tax system penalizes poverty and upholds racial disparity. It punishes owners of multifamily apartments while charging high-value buildings a lower effective tax rate. It also rewards speculators who sit on vacant lots and underutilized land.

Single-family homes — including mansions and brownstones in neighborhoods like Forest Hills, Queens, and Prospect Park South, Brooklyn — have an effective tax rate 2.4 times lower than small rental buildings and more than five times lower than large rentals, a 2025 CSS study found. The last remaining predominantly Black neighborhoods in the city — Canarsie, East New York, and Cambria Heights — are paying tax rates double those paid in gentrified Park Slope or the East Village. 

The current real estate tax system dates to 1981, when the State Legislature passed a law dividing property in the city into four classes: residential properties with one to three units; residential properties with more than three units; utility company equipment and special franchise property; and all other real property, such as stores, offices, and factories.

The system is broken because New York City has not conducted a comprehensive, citywide property tax reassessment in decades. Instead, the system has relied on historically based assessments rather than current market values. As a result, there are wide disparities in what owners pay, both between property classes and from one neighborhood to the next.

A long list of New York City mayors have tackled, but failed to change, a property tax system they all agreed needed reform. David Dinkins named a commission that flatly concluded “the property tax in New York City not only appears unfair, it is unfair.” It called for uniform residential valuations. The report, however, was published two days before Dinkins left office.

Rudolph Giuliani shelved the Dinkins commission findings and, at the urging of the real estate lobby, won passage of a two-year tax abatement that helped apartment owners, which was repeatedly renewed.  Michael Bloomberg, who did not take up reforms, signed an 18.5 percent tax hike to close a $1 billion budget deficit.  Bill de Blasio appointed another commission that, late in his second term, recommended changes in the assessment methods for co-ops and condominiums and the removal of caps on tax increases for small homes. No changes were adopted.

Eric Adams floated a proposal that would have reduced tax rates for 275,000 households that coincidentally formed his political base in the eastern Bronx, eastern Queens, and southern Brooklyn. He then proposed tax rebates. Both plans, which faced intense criticism and legal challenges, were never enacted.

Now the property tax reform issue will test Mamdani’s leadership. Regardless of where lawmakers land on his funding proposals, now is the time for sorely needed reform — for once and for all.

David R. Jones, Esq., is President and CEO of the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), the leading voice on behalf of low-income New Yorkers for more than 175 years. The views expressed in this column are solely those of the writer. The Urban Agenda is available on CSS’s website: www.cssny.org.

The Mortgage Survey Report found that sales were up for buildings with rent-stabilized apartments, in terms of both the number of transactions and the average sales price. This demonstrates that real estate investors continue to view rent-stabilized housing as desirable commodities. In fact, the jump in prices was nearly twice as high for fully rent-stabilized buildings as for the overall stock of rental buildings with at least one stabilized unit. The percentage of non-performing loans is also down, suggesting that a declining share of owners is falling behind on their mortgage payments.

Meanwhile, the Price Index of Operating Costs report includes two important findings. The first is that operating cost increases are primarily driven by rising property tax assessments, which track with rising sales prices. Meanwhile, the second largest leap in operating costs (after fuel) came from rising insurance prices—a problem that is affecting multifamily housing across the country and must be addressed through public policy interventions rather than rent increases.

Together, these two reports indicate that building owners’ fortunes remain favorable. Board members can interpret this data as a strong signal that landlords do not need another rent increase.

The Community Service Society of New York (CSS) has worked with and for New Yorkers since 1843 to promote economic opportunity and champion a more equitable city and state. We power change through a strategic combination of research, services, and advocacy to make New York more livable for people facing economic insecurity. www.cssny.org 

### 

April 2, 2025

New York — A statement from the leadership of the Community Service Society of New York, Riders Alliance, and the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA:

"The New York City Council has put forth a bold vision to make transit more affordable for the New Yorkers who need it most. As researched, Fair Fares is already essential for hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers, but expanding benefits and reforming the enrollment process would take it from a good idea to a truly transformative program. Including New Yorkers at or below 300% of the Federal Poverty Level — to finally include those making minimum wage — is another necessary step we look forward to seeing. The Community Service Society, the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA, and Riders Alliance applaud Speaker Menin and Council Leadership for their willingness to put riders' needs first."

This is no “April Fools” joke. This is the reality of devastating federal funding cuts under H.R.1.  As a result, healthcare costs for nearly a half a million mostly citizen New Yorkers and some lawfully present immigrants will become unaffordable unless Albany lawmakers take steps to fill the coverage gap. Legislation proposed by State Senator Rivera, Chair of the Senate Health Committee, and Assembly Member Paulin, Chair of the Assembly Health Committee, will ensure that half a million New Yorkers will keep their coverage. 

Joining the health committee chairs today were, Assembly Member Karines Reyes, Chair of the Puerto Rican/Hispanic Task Force, other elected officials and healthcare advocates from across the state who have been sounding the alarm about the implications of major coverage losses for New Yorkers unless the coverage gap created by H.R. 1 is addressed in the upcoming state budget.  

In short, the legislation (S.9589/Assembly number pending, Paulin) amends the social services law to ensure continuity of coverage for approximately 450,000 citizen and immigrant New Yorkers with incomes up to 250 percent of FPL.  It also amends the public health law to establish and administer a state-only funded premium assistance program for lawfully present immigrants who will lose their federal premium assistance come January 1st.  

“About 450,000 New Yorkers, largely working-class families, will lose health coverage due to H.R.1. This is not surprising coming from a federal administration that would rather give tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy than make our healthcare system more affordable,” said Gustavo Rivera, Chair of the Senate Health Committee and prime sponsor of S.9589. “In New York, we value our immigrant communities because they are our neighbors, they strengthen our economy, and addresses workforce challenges. We know that our healthcare ecosystem depends on every New Yorker having healthcare coverage. This legislation provides affordable coverage options to lawfully present immigrant populations and working families losing their insurance access so we can mitigate the harm on those impacted by federal cuts to our healthcare system.”  

“New York has a proud tradition of a having a high rate of health insurance coverage. In light of recent federal action, it is time to step up and find a way to ensure that New Yorkers are covered,“ said Assembly Member Amy Paulin. “As the State Assembly Health Chair, I have introduced legislation to achieve that aim and look forward to working with all my colleagues on this vital issue.”  

“As the federal administration continues its unconscionable assault on immigrant populations, legislators throughout New York must take a stand to mitigate the harm devastating these communities,” said Assemblywoman Michaelle C. Solages, Chair of the New York State Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic and Asian Legislative Caucus. “HR 1 will strip health coverage from 480,000 New Yorkers beginning July 1st including 30,000 residents in my own district. While the return to the Basic Health Program is a critical first step, it is not enough. That is why I am proud to co-sponsor this forthcoming legislation, which will take three concrete steps to strengthen access to health coverage and ensure that our most vulnerable residents are not abandoned in the face of these federal cuts.” 

“Before taking the oath of office, I put on scrubs and cared for patients as a nurse at Montefiore Hospital in the Bronx. I still return to the hospital monthly, to provide routine care for our community.  There are times when some of my patients are just one illness or missed paycheck away from a financial crisis,” said Assembly Member Karines Reyes, R.N., Chair of the Puerto Rican/Hispanic Task Force. “I’ve seen firsthand how drastic cuts to public health programs can delay care, worsen outcomes, and even fatally alter the course of a patient's treatment plan. Those most vulnerable to these cutbacks are the immigrant and working-class families, who so often face severe barriers to care due to enduring medical marginalization. This legislation is a critical step to mitigate the damage caused by H.R.1 so that we may protect access to care, strengthen community health systems, and ensure that no one in our state is forced to choose between their health and their livelihood.” 

“Our communities should never have to worry about losing access to health care because of harmful federal policy changes. But because of H.R. 1, as many as 1.5 million New Yorkers, could lose their health coverage in the coming years unless we act. This bill is a critical step to protect families who rely on reduced-cost and subsidized health insurance and to ensure our neighbors are not pushed out of coverage because of harmful federal policy changes. Our communities deserve stability, dignity, and the peace of mind that they will still be able to see a doctor and care for their families,” said Assembly Member Jessica González-Rojas. 

“We cannot allow Donald Trump to strip New Yorkers of their healthcare coverage,” said Assembly Member Micah Lasher. “This legislation is about stepping up where Washington has stepped back to keep New Yorkers covered and ensure continuity of care. New York has both the responsibility and the ability to act, and we must do so in this year’s budget.” 

“The imminent loss of health insurance will be a fiscal crisis for 450,000 New Yorkers and their families due to the stratospherically high health care costs in our state,” said Elisabeth R. Benjamin, Vice President of Health Initiatives at the Community Service Society of New York, “New York is lucky to have extraordinary leaders such as Senator Rivera and Assemblymember Paulin willing to champion their case in this year’s budget negotiations.  Health care affordability is top of mind right now for New Yorkers and the time is now – our leaders must act to provide affordable coverage for those about to lose it.” 

“New York is one of the richest states in the country—there is no excuse for 480,000 people to lose their health coverage," said Ursula Rozum, Co-Director of Campaigns’ Organizing at Citizen Action of New York. "We fought for years to expand care for working families, and we will not accept it being ripped away. Going backwards is a choice, and it’s the wrong one. State leaders must act now to protect coverage and ensure every New Yorker keeps the care they need. Anything less is a failure of leadership.” 

“Community Health Centers are already operating on razor-thin margins, caring for one in every eight New Yorkers, whether they have insurance coverage or the ability to pay. Federal actions now threaten to strip coverage from more than a million people, further straining an already stretched system. We strongly support New York’s efforts to ensure no one loses coverage as a result of HR1 and to provide affordable options for the nearly half a million New Yorkers who stand to lose Essential Plan coverage on July 1. Assemblywoman Amy Paulin and Senator Rivera’s legislation is a critical step to protect patients and support the safety net, while reaffirming our commitment to healthcare as a right, not a privilege” said Rose Duhan, President and CEO at Community Health Care Association of NYS.   

“Around a half a million New Yorkers are about to lose their health coverage because politicians in Washington would rather fund the detention of our neighbors and wars around the world than ensure that everyone has the ability to lead a healthy life,” said Becca Telzak, Deputy Director at Make the Road New York. "Luckily, our elected officials in Albany can act to protect our access to healthcare. By restoring these funds, we can ensure that nobody has to choose between putting food on the table and visiting a doctor.”  

“Across New York, United Ways and the 211 networks see every day how fear and instability undermine the wellbeing of children and families,” said Therese Daly, President & CEO at United Way of New York State & 211 New York. “When parents and caregivers are at risk of detention or deportation without access to legal support, entire communities feel the impact—from lost income to disrupted education and increased strain on social services.  Protecting immigrant families is not only the right thing to do—it is essential to building a stronger, healthier New York for all.” 

“The New York Coalition for Affordable Hospitals, made up of labor unions, healthcare providers, community organizations, employers, and social justice advocates, is committed to ensuring that every New Yorker as access to affordable healthcare,” said Samantha Harpool, Campaign Coordinator at 32BJ Labor Industry Cooperation Fund. “We cannot let 480,000 people lose access to care, especially when healthcare costs are rising with no end in sight. We need to address to the root cause of rising healthcare prices, not cut coverage for those who need it most.”   

“The time is now to protect the health care of the people at risk of losing insurance coverage,” said Lara Kassel, Coalition Coordinator at Medicaid Matters New York. “We know there is enough money to do what we need to do to make sure almost half a million New Yorkers - our neighbors, family members, friends, and constituents in every legislative district across the state - don't become uninsured.”  

“It is a fundamental responsibility of Gov. Hochul and the New York State Legislature to ensure that every New York resident has access to health insurance coverage that is both affordable and offers quality coverage,” said Charles King, Chief Executive Officer at Housing Works. 

“New York must do all it can to protect healthcare access for our local small business owners and their employees, particularly those who may lose coverage because of HR 1 or because of their status as immigrants,” said Lindsey Vigoda, New York Director at the Small Business Majority. “After all, research conducted by Small Business Majority and Georgetown University found that one-third of all people enrolled in Medicaid have a connection to a small business -- a population now at risk of losing coverage due to federal action. Meanwhile, immigrants are twice as likely to start a small business as native-born citizens, and they own a significant percentage of the businesses typically found on Main Streets such as dry cleaners, clothing stores and restaurants. Given these realities, it's clear that small businesses and their employees will be at risk if New York doesn't step up to address the healthcare needs of our small business community.” 

“H.R.1 will soon have devastating consequences for New York unless state leaders act quickly. According to the Department of Health, 1.5 million New Yorkers could become uninsured in the coming years, with more than 440,000 people including 404,000 citizens and 40,000 immigrants set to receive termination notices as soon as April 2026. The harm will ripple across every community in our state, said Karina Albistegui Adler, Director of Health Justice at New York Lawyers for the Public Interest. “Millions of New Yorkers live in mixed‑status households, and our economy depends on immigrant labor. Allowing hundreds of thousands of people to lose medical coverage would be shortsighted and dangerous. New York has long led the nation in expanding health coverage to immigrant communities, and it must continue that leadership now. By investing less than $1 billion annually, the state can protect coverage for our communities and ensure that health care remains a right, not a privilege, for all New Yorkers." 

“The entertainment industry is an economic powerhouse in NY – generating upwards of $100B annually for the State. And, yet, workers in the industry often lack reliable access to health insurance,” said Jim Bracchitta, Managing Director of Health Services at Entertainment Community Fund. “That’s why protecting programs like the Essential Plan are so important to the health and well-being of these hard-working New Yorkers. As thousands of them stand to lose coverage, we need New York’s legislative leaders to stand up for their protection. The only way for the arts to contribute to the economic health of NY is to make sure those who make art stay healthy.” 

“New York has a responsibility—and a proven history—of ensuring people don’t lose their health coverage when federal policy falls short,” said Lindsay Miller, Executive Director at the New York Association on Independent Living. “We urge state leaders to take swift budget action to safeguard affordable insurance for nearly half a million New Yorkers.” 

“Cabrini Immigrant Services of NYC joins our partners in urging New York State leadership to take immediate action to ensure that no New Yorker – immigrant or citizen – loses the healthcare coverage they depend on due to federal cuts. HR 1 puts coverage at risk for hundreds of thousands of lawfully present immigrants across New York, and the consequences will be felt across our communities, said Ella Nimmo, Director of Community Programs & Development at Cabrini Immigrant Services of NYC, Inc. “Every day, CIS-NYC staff sit across from New Yorkers who rely on that coverage to access primary care, afford medications, manage chronic conditions, and simply stay healthy to work and care for their families. As a state that has consistently led the way in ensuring immigrants have access to healthcare, New York must continue to lead in the face of the federal government’s failure to care for our communities.” 

“For the 1.8 million New Yorkers living with a rare disease, Medicaid is a vital source of healthcare coverage,” said Bob Graham, Policy Coordinator at the New York State Rare Disease Collaborative. “Properly funding Medicaid is more than a budgetary decision; it is a reflection of our shared New York value of placing the well-being of people first. A robust Medicaid program in an investment that ensures people - no matter how rare their condition - has the coverage and stability they need to live, work, and contribute to our communities.” 

“CACF proudly supports Assemblymember Amy Paulin’s bill designed to mitigate the dangerous impact of H.R.1,” said Anita Gundanna and Vanessa Leung, Co-Executive Directors of the Coalition for Asian American Children and Families. “New York has spent nearly two decades closing the insurance gap and we must ensure that progress — which greatly benefited Asian American and Pacific Islander New Yorkers — is not lost. Our state must continue to lead the way as we push back against federal cuts to healthcare coverage.”   

“Nearly half a million New Yorkers are at risk of losing their health coverage. As a national leader in expanding access to healthcare, it is imperative that New York continues to lead the way by taking action on behalf of families, workers, and our neighbors who are faced with a dimming reality of unaffordable health coverage. The proposals put forth offer the opportunity to maintain and protect coverage for those at risk. We urge state leaders to act decisively so no one is left behind," said Bethsy Morales-Reid, Vice President for Program Strategy and Impact for Hispanic Federation.   

"Primary care is the foundation of a strong and equitable health care system. It is the only part of the health care system proven to increase life expectancy, reduce costs and lower inequities,” said Aparna Mekala, CEO of Primary Care Development Corporation. “With over 7 million New Yorkers covered by Medicaid, the program is a vital source of life-saving primary care. If hundreds of thousands of people lose their insurance coverage, diseases like heart disease and diabetes will be left untreated, causing avoidable deaths to increase and lead to unhealthier communities that will further strain our emergency rooms and our economy. With an unprecedented number of uninsured New Yorkers seeking health care, an extra burden will be placed on already understaffed and underfunded Community Health Centers.  Our state leaders must ensure that those expected to lose coverage as a result of HR1 are made whole, including those in immigrant communities, so they can maintain access to the primary care that can save their lives.”   

Washington Republicans have turned their backs on nearly half a million New Yorkers who are counting on their health coverage to survive - we hope Governor Hochul and legislators will not do the same. For our members, who are older and disabled New Yorkers, home care workers and family caregivers, losing Medicaid isn't just a policy setback; it's a threat to their ability to stay in their homes and give and receive care,” said Ilana Berger, Director at NY Caring Majority. “New York has the resources and roadmap to fight back, and we're calling on Governor Hochul and the legislature to include these critical fixes in the final state budget. This moment demands courage, and the NY Caring Majority will stand with every New Yorker fighting to keep the coverage they need and deserve.” 

“New York can continue to lead the way in health care access and seize this opportunity to keep nearly 500,000 New Yorkers from losing their health insurance and protect their long-term physical and financial health,” said Fred Riccardi, President at the Medicare Rights Center. 

"Since COVID, we have seen how disparities in access to healthcare can have a drastic impact on our immigrant communities,” said Emira Habiby Browne, Founder and CEO at the Center for the Integration and Advancement of New Americans, Inc. “As the federal government continues to slash funding for health insurance, New York has a responsibility to protect the health of all its residents, no matter their country of origin. Maintaining the Essential Plan, establishing ACA premium assistance, and enacting health coverage for DACA recipients will save the lives of hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers, but only if our state leaders include it in the coming year’s budget." 

“Many Essential Plan members are people with disabilities who transitioned off Medicaid in order to maintain the coverage or care providers they rely on to work,” said Stephanie Orlando, Chief Executive Officer at Western New York Independent Living, Inc. “New York should ensure that these members can keep the health insurance they need to stay employed, and support people with disabilities who depend on consistent care to live independently in their communities.” 

"Young adults (18-34) and all New Yorkers, regardless of background, need and deserve truly affordable health care coverage,” said Professor Sean Henry Miller, Northeast Regional Director at Young Invincibles. “Now, our health care funding, our coverage, and our health itself are under attack. Young Invincibles was founded on ensuring health care access and equity for our marginalized age group by a group of passionate grad. students, over 15 years ago. We now call on our leaders at every level to ensure coverage becomes a right for all; not a privilege for some, despite profit-driven political attacks on our communities." 

 “The impact of H.R.1 on New Yorkers will be devastating, threatening decades of progress in expanding access to life-saving health care. Cuts to coverage jeopardize the health and wellbeing New Yorkers across the state, including immigrants and children who will lose care as a result of their parents’ coverage loss," said Raysa S. Rodriguez, Executive Director, Citizens' Committee for Children of New York. "At the same time, state leaders have a critical opportunity to act. As New York transitions back to the Basic Health Program, New York must advance state-funded coverage options to protect the 480,000 New Yorkers who will lose care if action is not taken now.”   

“The Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York (CIDNY) supports the human right for all people to have access to physical and mental healthcare. In order for the body and mind to work in harmony, people must have access to preventative healthcare,” said Sharon McLennon Wier, Ph.D., MSEd., CRC, LMHC, Executive Director of CIDNY. 

“NY leaders must act immediately to protect New Yorkers from senseless, deadly federal healthcare cuts. Our physicians and medical students see every day that healthcare is out of reach in our country--for elders and children, working people, New Yorkers who have insurance. It is unfathomable that our leaders would allow more of us to get sick and die from preventable illnesses as insurance companies rake in ever-mounting piles of cash. We urge you to include in the FY 2026-27 budget the stopgap measures outlined in this letter to maintain and expand insurance coverage for low income and immigrant New Yorkers and establish a financial assistance program in the short term. Ultimately, we must pass the New York Health Act to ensure that every New Yorker gets the comprehensive healthcare they need without cost or other insurance barriers, regardless of immigration status, while saving the state billions annually. Inaction by New York’s leaders is unacceptable and an equivalent betrayal to initiating the federal healthcare cuts," said Morgan Moore, Executive Director at Physicians for a National Health Program — New York Metro Chapter. 

“We have heard Governor Hochul repeatedly tell us that our families are her fight. This a lovely sentiment, but until it is coupled with concrete actions – it is just that,” said Andrea Champlin, Advocacy & Support Specialist for the Finger Lakes Independence Center. “Now is the time for New York State to step into the ring and ensure half a million New Yorkers do not lose their health coverage.” 

"New York has always been a leader in ensuring access to care and must continue to do everything in its power to provide affordable healthcare options for all New Yorkers," said Lisa Rivera, president and CEO of the New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG). "We urge Gov. Hochul and members of the State legislature to take immediate action to preserve access to health coverage for the nearly half a million New Yorkers who are set to lose coverage under HR 1 by returning to the Basic Health Program. It's not just the right thing to do; ensuring affordable access to healthcare also strengthens our economy, our communities and our entire state."   

"Losing access to health care harms vulnerable populations and places severe strain on community providers. As a provider of health care and housing, we see that coverage loss leads to delayed care, worsening health, and deeper instability, especially for those experiencing homelessness. The loss of primary and preventive care drives complications from untreated conditions, increases reliance on emergency rooms, raises health care costs, and further strains already limited hospital resources, which fuels a broader public health crisis. Federal changes threaten to deepen these inequities, demanding immediate state action to preserve coverage and strengthen community health. New York must act now to prevent these losses, protect vulnerable residents, and reduce homelessness," said Jonathon Santos-Ramos, Executive Director at Care For the Homeless.   

"The NYWFP applauds Senator Rivera and Assembly Member Paulin for stepping up to protect healthcare for New Yorkers. Over 400,000 New Yorkers could lose coverage due to Donald Trump and Congressman Lawler's dangerous “Big Beautiful Bill.”  S9589 Rivera / Paulin will ensure New Yorkers keep their health insurance including our immigrant neighbors. This is a critical measure to help address the affordability crisis working families are dealing with across the state. The NYWFP strongly encourages state leaders and lawmakers to sign on and champion this bill; all New Yorkers deserve quality healthcare," said NY Working Families Party State Director Jasmine Gripper 

The Community Service Society of New York (CSS) has worked with and for New Yorkers since 1843 to promote economic opportunity and champion a more equitable city and state. We power change through a strategic combination of research, services, and advocacy to make New York more livable for people facing economic insecurity. www.cssny.org  

NEW YORK, NY — The Community Service Society of New York (CSS), in partnership with the Progress and Poverty Institute, the Center for Land Economics, and the Fiscal Policy Institute, today released a new brief, NY Renters and Homeowners Want Property Tax Reforms Now. Drawing on CSS’s 2025 Annual Survey of Housing and Economic Security, the report finds that New Yorkers across the state are calling for a fundamental shift in how property is taxed to address the state's affordability crisis. 

The report demonstrates broad public support, both city and statewide, for property tax reform, and specifically singles out the authorization of Land Value Taxation (LVT) as done in bill A.3339B/S.1131B. An LVT shifts the property tax burden from the building to the land, leading to more fairness and efficient use of precious high-value space. The survey results are a clarion call for state policymakers and City Hall to finally address the fifty years of NYC overtaxing tenants and low-income communities of color. 

Key Findings 

• Majority Support for Land Value Tax (LVT): Fifty-two (52) percent of New Yorkers statewide support shifting the tax burden from buildings to land value to discourage speculation and encourage housing construction. When excluding "unsure" respondents, support for LVT exceeds 80 percent across the state. 
• Widespread Perception of Inequity: New Yorkers across income levels and housing tenures view the current system as unfair. Notably, 51 percent of higher-income residents and 59 percent of Manhattanites—the primary beneficiaries of current condo/co-op valuation loopholes—support reforming those assessments to ensure high-value units pay their fair share. 
• Renters Recognize the "Hidden Tax": Ninety-three (93) percent of market-rate renters in NYC understand that property tax increases are passed on to them by landlords. This underscores that property tax reform is not just a homeowner issue but a critical factor in renter affordability. 

This survey brief builds off the findings of the March 2025 joint report, Footing the Bill, which documented how New York City's tax structure has historically overtaxed tenants and low-income communities of color while allowing land speculators to remain lightly taxed. While previous attempts to overhaul the system have stalled under previous administrations, Mayor Zohran Mamdani campaigned on addressing inequities in the city’s property tax structure. Against this backdrop, and with Albany seeking to address affordability for everyday New Yorkers, the authorization of a Land Value Tax—and other changes—represents a shift away from structural features where speculators win while working families pay the bill. 

Key Recommendations 

• Authorize Land Value Taxation (Bills A3339B / S1131B): Grant New York City and other municipalities the legal authority to tax land at a higher rate than improvements to incentivize the development of vacant or underused lots, making housing more affordable for renters, and bring relief to middle class homeowners. 
• Repeal Section 581(1)(a) of the RPTL: Eliminate the "valuation ceiling" that requires condominiums and co-ops to be assessed as rental properties rather than at their actual market value, a practice that currently results in massive tax breaks for luxury units. 
• Expand the Renter’s Tax Credit: Establish a meaningful, refundable tax credit for rent-burdened tenants to bring their relief to parity with programs currently available to homeowners. 

“A split rate or land value tax strategy could be a great tool to deliver tax fairness and promote economic development. By giving municipalities the freedom to implement this type of tax, we can spur the construction of housing that we desperately need in a way that promotes the highest, best use of land - building the type of walkable, affordable, thriving communities we want to see,” said New York State Senator Rachel May. “We see new housing pressure, especially in Syracuse, with rising rents and increased homelessness. At the same time, we see vacant or underused lots in high-demand areas, which increases the tax burden on homes in residential neighborhoods. By passing this bill this year we can give municipalities the chance to rethink property taxes, delivering relief and economic growth. Thank you much to CSS and partners for writing this great brief to highlight the support for and potential of property tax reform.”  

"New York faces an affordability crisis and our current tax system penalizes housing construction and rewards land speculation, driving up rents and forcing people out of our state,” said New York State Assemblymember Alex Bores. “With study after study confirming that the poorest New Yorkers bear the brunt of our broken system, it’s time for a change. Land value taxes should be a large part of the solution."  

“For more than a decade CSS has used polling to track the needs and opinions of poor and working-class families and the impacts of New York’s policies on them,” said David R. Jones, CSS President and CEO. “With this most recent survey, we have as a state, for the first time, a real understanding of not only how property tax systems are impacting residents—from their point of view—but also what solutions they’d like to see advanced.” 

"Across the country, states are considering revenue-neutral land value tax reforms as a pragmatic way to ease rental pressure while working families struggle with rising housing costs. Shifting taxes from buildings to land discourages speculation and puts underused land to work for the public good,” said Greg Miller, Co-Founder & Executive Director for Center for Land Economics. “This polling by CSS-NY confirms that New York renters and homeowners alike recognize the importance of smart tax policy that returns the value of land to the communities that create it." 

"New York is a city of renters and apartments, so it is unfair and absurd that it overtaxes towers and under taxes single family homes,” said Stephen Hoskins, Director of Community Research & Engagement at the Progress and Poverty Institute. “NYC should flip that script with a land value tax, which taxes land speculators while rewarding the condos and coops that keep New York affordable."  

“Property tax reform that ensures economic justice must be a key priority for City and State lawmakers. Further, we must reform the property tax system to incentivize the development of new and high-quality housing options for people all across the income distribution,” said Emily Eisner Acting Executive Director and Chief Economist Fiscal Policy Institute. “This report demonstrates that New Yorkers all across the state can see and feel that the current property tax system has not achieved these two goals. It’s past time to improve the progressivity of the property tax system and build a system that serves all New Yorkers, not just the most affluent." 

“In order to address our affordability crisis, we must build more housing and ensure we aren’t overtaxing tenants. A Land Value Tax would discourage real estate speculation and encourage building the housing that New Yorkers desperately need,” said Annemarie Gray, Executive Director of Open New York. “Our property tax system should not overtax tenants just because they don't see the tax bill—the cost is still passed on through higher rents. We must implement a fairer and more equitable property tax system as part of an all-of-the-above approach to solving our housing shortage." 

“From Canarsie to Rosedale, East NY to Washington Heights, the inequity in NYC’s property tax system is no secret,” said Iziah Thompson, CSS Senior Policy Analyst and author of the report. “For decades, middle class homeowners, mostly of color have born the brunt of this inequity, but reforms have stalled. Now, we are in a moment where renters are more conscious than ever of the costs of rental properties incur and how those costs can impact their rents. This realization makes it possible to build a strong coalition of renters and homeowners who can organize and fight to finally win property tax fairness.”

The Community Service Society of New York (CSS) has worked with and for New Yorkers since 1843 to promote economic opportunity and champion a more equitable city and state. We power change through a strategic combination of research, services, and advocacy to make New York more livable for people facing economic insecurity. www.cssny.org 

718-309-2346 / jmaclin@cssny.org

Today’s Rent Guidelines Board meeting revealed two stark facts: rent-stabilized landlords continue to profit, while rent-stabilized tenants continue to struggle.

The Board’s 2026 Income and Expense report—presented today at its first Public Meeting of 2026—shows that Net Operating Incomes (NOI, or landlords’ incomes minus operating expenses) rose by 6.2 percent, on top of last year’s 12.1 percent increase and the previous year’s 10.4 percent jump, compounding and combining into an overall NOI growth of more than 30 percent over the past three years.

Adjusting for inflation and looking over the long-term, rent-stabilized landlords’ average NOI has gone up by 56.6 percent since 1990. Meanwhile, over the past year, rent stabilized building distress levels stayed steady, rent collection rates rose across the city, and operating costs grew at a slower pace. Taken together, the Board’s data does not point to any need for a rent increase.

Meanwhile, Community Service Society of New York (CSS) senior policy analysts Oksana Mironova and Samuel Stein presented on the findings from CSS’s most recent Annual Survey of Housing and Economic Security, a scientific survey of New Yorkers conducted in summer, 2025. The survey found that low-income rent stabilized tenants are struggling financially. Sixty-seven percent struggle to make ends meet, 83 percent have little-to-no savings, and 55 percent probably could not afford to cover a $400 unexpected expense. When asked what issue they would most like New York City leaders to focus on, a majority (56 percent) chose “Reducing the cost of housing.”

Today’s presentations made clear that while rent-stabilized landlords are continuing to do good business, rent-stabilized tenants are struggling to make ends meet.

Watch the RGB meeting on YouTube.

The Community Service Society of New York (CSS) has worked with and for New Yorkers since 1843 to promote economic opportunity and champion a more equitable city and state. We power change through a strategic combination of research, services, and advocacy to make New York more livable for people facing economic insecurity. www.cssny.org 

###

A new proposed rule from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development would deny housing assistance to families with mixed immigration status—households where some members are citizens or have legal status and others do not. Today, these families can remain together in subsidized housing with assistance prorated only for those who qualify. The new rule would effectively end that policy, forcing families to separate or lose their homes.

The cruelty is as obvious as the consequences.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CDBC) estimate that nearly 80,000 people (including about 37,000 children) could lose their housing assistance if this rule is finalized. Many of these children are U.S. citizens. Their only “crime” would be living in a family that includes someone without eligible immigration status.

New York would be disproportionately affected by the rule, as it is home to the largest share—about 13 percent—of mixed-status households receiving federal housing assistance of any state. According to the CDBC, an estimated 2,540 mixed-status families would be barred from help in New York. The damage would fall disproportionately on Hispanics who make up the largest immigrant population in the city and are heavily represented among low-income renters who depend on federal housing assistance to stay afloat.  For many of these families, losing housing support would mean facing an impossible choice: separated from loved ones or risk homelessness.

Let’s be clear about what the policy would actually do. It would deny housing assistance even to eligible family members—including U.S. citizens—if someone in the household lacks qualifying immigration status. In other words, a citizen child could lose stable housing simply because a parent is undocumented.

The Trump administration claims this rule is about fairness and protecting taxpayer resources. But immigrants already contribute billions in taxes every year. In 2023, immigrant New Yorkers paid more than $70 billion in taxes and generated about $160 billion in spending power, according to the American Immigration Council. And people without legal status have never been eligible for housing assistance themselves. Under current policy, the government simply adjusts the subsidy so that only eligible members receive support.

What the new rule does instead is weaponize housing policy to target immigrant families.

The broader consequences would be devastating. Housing instability increases the risk of eviction, homelessness, and family separation. Children forced to move frequently suffer academically and emotionally. Communities lose stability. Cities like New York, which already facing a severe housing affordability crisis, would see even more pressure on shelters and social services.

When the Trump administration first proposed a similar rule in 2019, it sparked immediate legal challenges from states, cities, and housing advocates across the country. Ultimately, the policy was never implemented. New York helped lead that fight then, and it must do so again now. With more mixed-status families receiving federal housing assistance than any other state, New York has both the most at stake and the clearest responsibility to stand up for the thousands of New Yorkers who would be pushed toward housing instability by this cruel and unnecessary policy.

David R. Jones, Esq., is President and CEO of the Community Service Society (CSS), the leading voice on behalf of low-income New Yorkers for more than 175 years, and a member of the MTA Board. The views in this column are solely those of the writer. The New Majority is available on CSS’s Web site: www.cssny.org.

The case for full funding is overwhelming. HAVP is simple, targeted, and proven in concept: like federal Section 8, vouchers cap a household’s rent burden at roughly 30 percent of income and can be used to prevent eviction or speed exits from shelter—precisely the interventions New York needs most. The program first launched last year; lawmakers who championed it now urge scaling to $250 million so it can reach far more households statewide. 

Consider the stakes. In 2025, more than eight percent of Bronx households were threatened with eviction filings. And this is not just a New York City story: in 27 counties outside the city, eviction filing rates in 2025 surpassed 2019 levels. These are not abstract metrics—they are warnings that thousands of families are one court date away from displacement and all the economic and educational harm that follows. 

Public support for an expansion is not merely broad—it’s overwhelming. A Community Service Society of New York policy brief released last month found 91 percent of respondents across regions, incomes, races, and political affiliations support expanding HAVP and making it permanent. 

Meanwhile, New York’s shelter system and statewide homelessness indicators remain under acute stress. New York City recorded roughly 90,000 people in its main shelter system on a typical night in May 2025. Statewide, HUD’s 2024 point-in-time data showed New York with 158,019 people experiencing homelessness, almost one in five of the national total—second only to California. Those figures reflect real families, real children, and real costs—moral and fiscal—when prevention fails. 

Full funding for HAVP is also fiscally smart. While rental assistance costs money, so do shelters, eviction courts, emergency rooms, and jails, all of which get used more when tenants can’t afford to stay in their homes. We should be comfortable budgeting for outcomes we want, like housing stability, especially when they save on the fiscal costs and human toll of eviction and homelessness. 

And the timing could not be more urgent. New York is staring down significant federal headwinds: proposed HUD cuts and policy changes would slash rental assistance and impose time limits, shifting costs to states and localities and putting tens of thousands of New York households at risk. Under the Trump Administration HUD’s discretionary budget is being shredded – by roughly 44–51 percent — compared to the prior year with severe consequences for Section 8, public housing and homelessness programs. New York cannot wish away Washington’s retrenchment; it must build state-level tools to keep families stably housed. HAVP is exactly that tool. 

Governor Hochul deserves credit for backing HAVP last year at $50 million, acknowledging the need for a state voucher. But the pilot was always a “foot in the door,” not the destination. The Assembly’s one-house budget now explicitly proposes an additional $200 million for HAVP—bringing the total to $250 million; the Senate echoes that commitment. 

Skeptics will ask: can we afford it? Look at the alternatives. Eviction spikes already stretch the courts; the state’s own dashboard shows filings rising across multiple counties since 2019. Each avoidable eviction ripples through school districts, Medicaid spending, and municipal budgets. Preventing the loss of a home is invariably preferable to repairing the damage. Another plus is that HAVP’s design—modeled on Section 8 but more flexible—helps close the affordability gap for those shut out of federal programs, including some immigrants and people with past convictions, and can be deployed quickly where need is greatest. 

There is also a pragmatic, statewide lens here. HAVP is not a “New York City program.” CSS research shows eviction pressure and homelessness extending well beyond the five boroughs, with several upstate counties exceeding city borough filing rates in 2025. Local leaders from Buffalo to the Capital Region need tools their communities can actually use; HAVP vouchers are portable, prevention-focused, and adaptable to local markets. 

Here’s the bottom line: HAVP is that rare example of common ground where tenant advocates, many landlords, nonprofit providers, and business leaders find alignment: stable homes reduce shelter costs, reduce turnover, and make neighborhoods safer and more resilient. That’s why we’ve seen sustained, multi-year advocacy to reach this point—and why both chambers have now put $250 million on the table. 

The Governor should join Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins and Speaker Carl Heastie and lock in the State Legislature’s full $250 million in the final FY27 state budget. Doing so will prevent evictions, reduce homelessness, and demonstrate that New York still knows how to solve big problems with practical, evidence-based policy—even when Washington turns away.

David R. Jones, Esq., is President and CEO of the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), the leading voice on behalf of low-income New Yorkers for more than 175 years.  The views expressed in this column are solely those of the writer.  The Urban Agenda is available on CSS’s website: www.cssny.org.

The enactment last year of the “One Big Beautiful Bill (H.R.1) set in motion a series of health care cuts that would have left approximately 1.5 million New Yorkers without coverage over the next 2 years. In anticipation of a loss in federal funding, Governor Kathy Hochul included contingency funds in her executive budget in the event the federal government cut or reduced funding for public health insurance programs that cover lawfully present immigrants and citizen New Yorkers. But the Governor and State Legislature must act in the next few weeks to ensure that 480,000 New Yorkers do not lose coverage.  

A new Community Service Society of New York (CSS) report examines four steps that New York State lawmakers can take to mitigate the imminent loss of federal financing which affects citizens and legal immigrants enrolled in Medicaid, the Essential Plan (EP), and Qualified Health Plans (QHPs) on the NY State of Health Marketplace. With the state budget due on April 1, policymakers have fewer than three weeks to agree on a course of action for the 480,000 residents who are set to lose coverage starting July 1, 2026.  

Taking Advantage of New York’s Basic Health Plan Trust Fund 

Unlike other states, New York has an important policy lever – in the form of the Basic Health Plan Trust Fund – that can be used to continue to provide coverage for many lawfully present immigrants residing in the state. It currently has $8.9 billion that can only be used to pay for health insurance and could be used to fill coverage gaps created by H.R.1. Earlier this month, New York received approval to phase out its 1332 Waiver program and return to operating a 1331 BHP, preserving coverage for approximately 1.3 million out of the currently enrolled 1.7 million “Essential Plan (EP)” enrollees.  

Although H.R.1 reduced eligibility for federally funded health coverage from more than a dozen immigration statuses to just three (Medicaid, EP and QHPs), it did not terminate the eligibility for lawful immigrants to participate in a BHP.  

Under the 1331 BHP, the state will be able to continue to cover lawfully present immigrants with incomes between 0-200 percent of FPL and citizens and H.R.1 qualified immigrants with incomes above the Medicaid income eligibility levels (138 percent of FPL).  

For $2.5 billion, health coverage can be preserved for 480,000 New Yorkers 

In short, the CSS report analyzes the available options to address the 480,000 citizens and lawful immigrants with incomes between 138 and 250 percent of FPL who will no longer be eligible for free EP coverage after July 2026 and moderate-income lawful immigrants who will no longer qualify for subsidies after January 1, 2027. Report co-authors Elisabeth Benjamin and Mia Wagner describe in detail four interlocking proposals state lawmakers can adopt to ensure no coverage losses for this population. 

The four proposals are:  

1. The BHP proposal, including modeling the number of people who will be enrolled in BHP, how much it will cost, and the sustainability of the BHP trust fund (this proposal already has been initiated by Governor Hochul); 
2.   A proposal to provide EP coverage for the 444,000 EP 5 enrollees scheduled to lose coverage on July 1, 2026; 
3.   A proposal to ensure that a small group (6,000) of non-BHP eligible legal immigrants (the “Dreamers”) stay covered; 
4.  A proposal to provide state-funded premium assistance that replicates the federal premium assistance that 30,000 lawful immigrants are set to lose on January 1, 2027, under H.R.1. 

The four proposals are estimated to cost the state as little as $2.3 billion. This cost can be absorbed by the $3 billion the Hochul Administration already allocated in its proposed budget to pay for Medicaid for those who will be enrolled in the now-approved BHP.   

“For states like New York with large urban centers and diverse populations, H.R.1 represented a cruel and punitive attempt to eviscerate our public health landscape. It is contrary to our values as a state and as a pioneer in innovative health policies that serve all residents,” said David R. Jones, CSS President and CEO. “We call on Albany lawmakers to show the rest of the nation that New York values its immigrant communities and will always protect access to health care for its residents, despite efforts by Washington to strip it away.”  

“New York has a long tradition of filling in insurance coverage gaps created by the federal government,” said Elisabeth Ryden Benjamin, CSS Vice President of Health Initiatives and report co-author. “Thankfully, Governor Hochul’s proposed budget initially allocated contingency funding in the event the federal government did not approve the resumption of our state Basic Health Program. Now that that has occurred, we are hopeful that in the next three weeks, the Governor, the Majority Leader, and the Speaker can come together to redeploy that contingency funding to save health insurance for the 480,000 New Yorkers set to lose coverage beginning this July.”  

"It is essential to the stability of our state’s health care system to ensure these 480,000 New Yorkers continue to be insured,” said Mia Wagner, CSS Director of Health Policy and report co-author. “Without access to health insurance, patients are forced to choose between going to the doctor and paying their bills. The state must act to protect the physical and fiscal health of New York in this year’s budget.” 

The Community Service Society of New York (CSS) has worked with and for New Yorkers since 1843 to promote economic opportunity and champion a more equitable city and state. We power change through a strategic combination of research, services, and advocacy to make New York more livable for people facing economic insecurity. www.cssny.org 

Since 1843, the Community Service Society of New York (CSS) has promoted economic opportunity and well-being for low-income New Yorkers through research, policy advocacy, and direct services. We have been at the forefront of advocacy for better housing conditions since the beginning, from the city’s first tenement laws in the 1800's to contemporary organizing for strong tenants’ rights.

Our 2025 Annual Survey of Housing and Economic Security showed wide housing quality issues across the rental market. We found the greatest among low-income tenants and housing voucher-holders. Additionally, we know that there are specific landlords who have spent years deferring maintenance in their buildings, making conditions essentially unlivable for their tenants, without recourse.

New York City needs stronger tools to stabilize buildings in financial and physical distress, and to hold bad landlords accountable.

Dovetailing with broader tax lien sale reform, the SAFER Homes Act would create such a tool. It would improve the Third Party Transfer program’s targeting and increase outreach to building owners. The revamped program will focus on buildings in most severe physical and financial distress, while clearly communicating with owners and residents alike throughout the process.

In particular, SAFER Homes will offer an expanded pathway for tenants to create new co-ops, creating a pathway for new social housing creation.

CSS offers our full support to the SAFER Homes Act.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. If you have any questions, please contact me at omironova@cssny.org.

The proposed rule could upend the lives of millions of people nationwide and place a bullseye on thousands of New Yorkers in mixed-immigration status households. At risk is nothing short of casting into homelessness low-income citizens, legal residents and many children born on U.S soil.

The chaos could complicate Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s campaign pledge to invest heavily in repairs to the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) as part of his housing affordability strategy. He should also speak out against the looming Trump assault guaranteed to spike homelessness among New Yorkers who desperately depend on public housing.

The mayor, who has not said much publicly about NYCHA since taking office, has an obligation to articulate his plans for public housing as soon as possible. More than one million renters in New York State rely on vouchers to pay at least part of their rent. In New York City, 520,808 people live in HUD-assisted buildings, including public housing, project-based subsidies, and dwellings for the elderly and disabled persons.

Already, the long-neglected NYCHA was among thousands of agencies warned in recent weeks that they must verify the legal status of residents or face sanctions. In a test drive of the policy, which was proposed in the Heritage Foundation’s poisonous Project 2025 policy roadmap, San Francisco’s housing authority has already begun checks after it was given a 30-day deadline.

Things will get ugly fast if families, through no fault of their own, are evicted from NYCHA apartments costing on average $548 a month. In the face of New York City’s affordable housing emergency, where will they go? Forcing households into homelessness is a likely outcome – in fact, it may be the point – of this heartless policy.

Mamdani went to the White House recently to ask President Donald Trump behind closed doors for $21 billion to develop an old Queens rail yard into the city’s biggest affordable housing project in a half century. It would take years to complete and require an extraordinary political feat to make the enormous 12,000 housing units, parks, hospitals and other amenities reality.

Meanwhile, there is an imminent risk to NYCHA’s signature construction project, the creation of 2,500 market-rate units by demolishing the Fulton and Chelsea-Elliot Houses. A state appeals court judge last month temporarily halted construction after a group of tenants successfully appealed to stop the project, which calls for roughly 3,500 mixed-income apartments – including about 1,000 permanently affordable units – stores and other amenities.

Mamdani built his campaign around his promise to freeze rent in rent-stabilized apartments, which the candidate’s constellation of friends and allies repeated far and wide to successfully appeal to young voters. He’s moving to fulfill the pledge. The rent-freeze illustrates the way Mamdani reads the room, getting everyone on board with an issue that magnifies his charisma and youthful energy.

His more muted campaign website promised to “double” the city’s capital investment in major renovations of NYCHA housing and build new, affordable publicly controlled housing on NYCHA’s city-owned land. As well as use his political capital to increase city subsidies to housing repairs and push Albany to support his commitment to NYCHA’s capital needs on an annual basis.

The new mayor’s first preliminary five-year capital plan included $662 million in FY 2027 for upkeep of 3,200 NYCHA units and $30 million for heat pumps in the Rockaways. That’s a good start as he is poised to propose his first budget. He has promised to pay for his ambitious agenda with higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy, municipal bonds and other steps, most of which must be approved by Albany. There are signs Mamdani’s impassioned followers are pressuring Gov. Kathy Hochul and state lawmakers to support taxing the richest New Yorkers to pay for the mayor’s stated goal of leveling the economic playing field.

Mamdani’s stance on public housing should be informed by the cautionary tale of former Mayor Eric Adams’ trail of broken campaign promises. His political base experienced vertigo as he abandoned his north star pledges, tipping his political support off its axis with double-speak about NYCHA, police brutality and his public embrace of Trump.

Here’s the lesson: The challenges at NYCHA won’t magically disappear, even if we don’t mention them aloud. City Hall must take the lead in rallying the state legislature, builders, investors, banks and advocates for the poor to solve the problem of housing affordability. We all have skin in the game, whether we want to or not.

But the mayor should remind everyone involved that NYCHA is the linchpin in any solution to New York City’s affordable housing crisis.

David R. Jones, Esq., is President and CEO of the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), the leading voice on behalf of low-income New Yorkers for more than 175 years. The views expressed in this column are solely those of the writer. The Urban Agenda is available on CSS’s website: www.cssny.org.

The enactment of H.R. 1 will result in draconian changes to eligibility and funding for health insurance, causing an estimated 1.7 million New Yorkers to lose their coverage. HCFANY urges the State to use the FY27 budget to mitigate the harm of H.R. 1 and keep as many New Yorkers enrolled in health coverage as possible.

Fortunately, New York State has several revenue sources that can help mitigate the worstcase scenarios triggered by H.R. 1. These sources should be committed to a “coverage lock box” to protect New Yorkers losing coverage.

First, the Executive Budget has conservatively assumed that the State will need to provide State-only funded Medicaid to the Aliessa population, or to State residents with lawfully present immigration status. Assuming the State successfully returns to operating its Essential Plan (EP) program under the federal Basic Health Program (BHP) authority, this would free up approximately $3.9 billion. Second, the State has recently been awarded a delay in the Managed Care Organization (MCO) tax, which will generate another $1 billion in revenue. Together, this $4.9 billion in found resources should be set aside in New York’s “coverage lock box” to fund quality, affordable health coverage for those targeted to lose it.

To this end, HCFANY has the following three categories of recommendations to offer to the State Legislature: (I) protect and improve health coverage; (II) regulate prices to create a more affordable health care system for New Yorkers; and (III) robustly fund consumer assistance and enrollment programs and increase Article 6 funding to help New Yorkers navigate new complex hurdles.

Our detailed comments are offered below.

I. Protect and improve health insurance coverage.

HCFANY urges the Legislature to ensure the final budget protects and improves New Yorkers' access to health insurance coverage. The Executive Budget could be improved to mitigate coverage losses resulting from H.R. 1. It also includes several components to improve health insurance coverage, as described below.

HCFANY has recommendations in the following areas: (1) stemming insurance coverage losses for citizens and lawful immigrants; (2) proposals related to Managed Care; (3) amendments to the emergency medical services and Surprise Bills law; (4) reforms to Prior Authorization; and (5) enacting the New York Health Act.

Specifically, among reforms to Prior Authorization (4), the Executive Budget proposes to expand the Consumer Guide, which is issued annually. HCFANY noted in its 2025-26 rate review comments that this “Consumer Guide” excludes 80 percent of the individual market. The legislature should ensure that all plans are included in the Guide along with the proposed further expansions.

1. Stem insurance coverage losses for citizens and lawful immigrants as a result of H.R. 1 (not included in FY27 Executive Budget).

The enactment of H.R. 1 will cause significant disruptions to federal funding for lawful immigrant enrollment, including substantial eligibility cuts, prompting New York to phase out its 1332 Waiver program and revert to operating a 1331 BHP.^[1]

The FY27 Executive Budget was developed under the prudent assumption that the State’s request to roll back the 1332 waiver and return to the Section 1331 BHP will be denied by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). As a result, the FY27 Executive Budget allocates $3.89 million in new Medicaid spending to cover lawful immigrants currently enrolled in the EP who are newly ineligible for federal financial participation.^[2[ In 2001, in Aliessa v. Novello, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled that the State must provide coverage, as part of its duty to care for the needy, to low-income immigrants who are otherwise Permanently Residing Under Color of Law (PRUCOL). As a result of the Aliessa case, the State must make up cuts to federal funding for lawful immigrants who are newly ineligible, hence the FY27 budget allocation.

While a return to BHP will allow 609,000 lawfully present immigrants to retain EP coverage, H.R. 1 will still eliminate coverage for approximately 480,000 New Yorkers, including: (1) 444,000 EP enrollees (citizens and immigrants) with incomes between 200-250 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL); (2) 6,000 individuals with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) immigration status or residual PRUCOLs; and 30,000 lawfully present immigrants with incomes over 200 percent of the FPL.

Assuming New York’s return to a BHP is approved, there are three options that the State can take to provide coverage for these three groups:

• Offer State-only funded EP coverage to the 444,000 New Yorkers expected to lose EP eligibility in July 2026. Six-month coverage with no premium would cost between $960 million and $1.7 billion, depending on the premium rate level set. If a modest $50 premium is levied, this option would cost between $710 and $943 million per year, depending on the premium rate level set.
• Offer State-only funded EP to the 6,000 DACA and other residual PRUCOL immigrants with incomes between 138-200 percent of the FPL. This would cost the State between $29 and $50 million per year, depending on the level of the EP premium rates.
• Create a State-only funded premium assistance program to make Qualified Health Plans (QHPs) equally affordable for 30,000 lawfully present immigrants, like the State does for their citizen counterparts. This would cost $244 million per year, beginning in 2027.

2. Proposals related to Managed Care (HMH Article VII, Part M).

The FY27 Executive Budget includes several changes related to managed care, including: the repeal of continuous coverage for children, amendments to the EP benefit package, and termination of presumptive eligibility for immigrants and children. HCFANY makes the following recommendations regarding these provisions:

Delay the repeal of continuous coverage for children up to age six. The FY27 Executive Budget repeals the State’s continuous coverage program for children up to age six, effective July 1, 2026.^[3] Currently, continuous coverage for children is authorized under the State’s Medicaid 1115 Waiver, which expires on March 31, 2027.^[4] New federal rules indicate that the federal government will not reauthorize children’s continuous coverage – used by a dozen states – as their Waivers expire. The Legislature should delay the repeal to the last possible moment, or at the very least until January 1, 2027, to ensure a smooth transition for these children.

Amend the Essential Plan benefit package. The FY27 Executive Budget amends the definition of health care services to be provided by a BHP in Section 369-gg(c) of the Social Services Law.^[5] Specifically, it requires the Commissioner of Health to set the benefits to include Essential Health Benefits, effectively adding vision, dental, and access to all cancer care centers in the area. This section of the HMH Article VII bill removes long-term services and supports from the definition of health care services to be provided by a BHP, thereby extending the period during which the BHP trust fund can be used to provide coverage and offset federal cuts. HCFANY supports all these changes to the Essential Plan benefit package.

Terminate presumptive eligibility for immigrants and children. The FY27 Executive Budget eliminates presumptive eligibility for pregnant women and children.^[6] Since the New York State of Health Marketplace was launched, this process is no longer used by consumers. Accordingly, HCFANY does not oppose its repeal.

3. Amendments to the Emergency Medical Services and Surprise Bills law (PPGG Article VII, Part T).

The Executive Budget seeks to strip consumer protection for Medicaid beneficiaries under New York’s landmark surprise billing legislation. HCFANY urges the Legislature to reject any effort to treat Medicaid beneficiaries less advantageously than other New Yorkers.

HCFANY has no objection to extending the Surprise Bills law to Empire Plan enrollees or to cap the amount of fees awarded under the Independent Dispute Resolution process.

4. Reforms to Prior Authorization (TED Article VII, Part HH).

The FY27 Executive Budget includes a series of reforms to prior authorization, continuity of care, formulary disclosures, and the annually issued consumer guide. Recent national polling found that people with insurance ranked prior authorization requirements as their largest health care burden, aside from cost.^[7]

Consumer Guide. The FY27 Executive Budget requires that the Department of Financial Services (DFS) include several additional data points on grievances, approvals, appeals, and adverse determinations.^[8] HCFANY supports expanding the Consumer Guide.

Unfortunately, these laudable improvements to the Consumer Guide are a meaningless expenditure of State funds unless the Legislature requires the Guide to include all products. As of 2025, 80 percent of New Yorkers enrolled in the individual market are enrolled in plans that are omitted. The Consumer Guide should report on the plans to which its purported consumer audience is enrolled. The Legislature should expand on the FY27 Executive Budget additions to the Consumer Guide and require DFS to partner with the Department of Health (DOH) to ensure that the Consumer Guide serves all consumers. See Figure 1.

Continuity of care. The FY27 Executive Budget expands the period insurers must cover out-of-network treatment for new enrollees (“continuity of care”) to 90 days for all health conditions. For pregnant enrollees, this includes care throughout pregnancy and postpartum.^[9] HCFANY supports this proposal to expand continuity of care.

Preauthorization. The FY27 Executive Budget requires that prior authorizations for designated chronic conditions remain valid for at least 1 year. However, HCFANY recommends the Legislature go further and requires carriers to accept simple provider attestations for enrollees who have permanent chronic conditions that do not change over time, instead of a full annual utilization review.

Formulary disclosure. The FY27 Executive Budget requires formularies to be posted publicly in a standard, accessible format. Specifically, a formulary drug list is considered accessible if it can be viewed on an insurer’s public website without creating an account and if a patient can easily determine which formulary applies to each plan. HCFANY supports this proposal to expand access to information on health plans’ formulary drug lists.^[10]

5. Enact the New York Health Act (not included in FY27 Executive Budget).

Of course, many of the changes above would be unnecessary if the State enacted the New York Health Act, which would provide affordable, comprehensive coverage for all New Yorkers, regardless of income or immigration status. HCFANY recommends that the Legislature enact the New York Health Act to address the long-term health care needs of New Yorkers.

II. Regulate prices to create a more affordable health care system for New Yorkers.

HCFANY commends the Legislature and the Governor for taking action to lessen the impact of medical debt on New Yorkers over the past few years. Unfortunately, health care costs remain unaffordable for many New Yorkers, a problem that will worsen significantly under H.R. 1. Given that 75 percent of people with medical debt owe at least some of it to hospitals, HCFANY urges the Legislature to consider the following consumer protections.

Health care spending has increased rapidly over the past several decades in New York and nationwide. Between 2000 and 2020, health care costs rose approximately twice as fast as inflation.

It is well established that prices, rather than patient care utilization or the complexity of services used, drive rising health care spending.^[11] Specifically, rising hospital prices have had the greatest impact, with hospital spending accounting for more than one-third of New York's health care expenditures.^[12] Importantly, higher hospital prices are not necessarily associated with higher-quality care and may even be linked to lower hospital performance and patient experience scores.^[13]

It is critical that the Legislature take action to control prices in the long-term in conjunction with short-term solutions to mitigate the harm of H.R. 1. HCFANY recommends that the State take several modest options, including adopting site-neutral payment policies for lowcomplexity services, requiring increased investment in primary care, and creating an Office of Health Care Affordability.

1. Adopt the Fair Pricing Act (site-neutral payment policies) for certain lowcomplexity services (not included in FY27 Executive Budget).

The Legislature should require plans to reimburse no more than 150 percent of the Medicare rate for a list of low-complexity procedures recommended by MedPAC. Adopting this price cap, along the lines of what is suggested in the Fair Pricing Act (S705A|A2140), would reduce cost disparities between hospitals and non-hospital providers.

Brown University researchers estimate that if the Fair Pricing Act were adopted statewide, it could save the State $1.14 billion annually, including $213 million in reduced outof-pocket costs for consumers with commercial insurance.^[14]

2. Invest in primary care to improve outcomes and promote health equity (not included in FY27 Executive Budget).

HCFANY urges the Legislature to include the provisions of the Primary Care Investment Act (S1634|A1915A) which would require: (1) the State to measure and publicize the current level of primary care spending and (2) require insurers that report spending less than 12.5 percent of their overall health spending on primary care to increase that investment by one percent each year until they reach at least 12.5 percent.

Nationally, only an estimated 4.6 percent of health care spending is on primary care. New York spends less than the national average: 4.2 percent of health care spending is on primary care for Employer Sponsored Insurance and 2.7 percent for Medicare FFS plans.^[15] However, primary care accounts for approximately 48 percent of office visits each year.^[16] At least 17 other states have enacted laws or promulgated regulations to remedy this underinvestment in primary care.^[17]

The New York State of Health’s (NYSOH) Provider Access and Availability Survey Results, published in May 2025, found significant problems with patient access to primary care. For example, the primary care provider directory access rate was 26 percent for QHPs and 28 percent for EP networks. In addition, the timely appointment rates for sick visits were only 32 percent and 17 percent for QHP and EP networks, respectively.^[18]

HCFANY urges the Legislature to include the provisions in the Primary Care Investment Act (S1634|A1915A) in the final budget to reduce health care costs, improve patient outcomes, and promote health equity.

3. Establish an independent New York Office of Health Care Affordability to slow health care spending growth, promote high-value care, and assess market consolidation (not included in FY27 Executive Budget).

New York has demonstrated a need for increased regulation of its health care spending growth, quality, and market consolidation. Fortunately, other states offer models for structural solutions to address these issues, such as California’s Office of Health Care Affordability (OHCA). Following California's lead, New York should require its members not to receive compensation from health care entities. New York’s Public Health and Health Planning Council (PHHPC) is comprised of political appointees who are mostly affiliated with hospitals and other health care industry representatives. Other states, including Vermont, Indiana, and Maryland, have similar affordability boards that are increasing oversight of health care costs through price caps, transparency rules, and budget reviews.^[19]

The Legislature should consider creating an independent New York Office of Health Care Affordability to address long-term structural issues to improve health care delivery in New York.

4. Strengthen oversight of health care transactions (HMH Article VII, Part H).

HCFANY supports the series of proposals in the FY 27 Executive Budget to expand oversight of health care transactions, with minor amendments to improve transparency and further strengthen oversight.^[20]

Tracking the impact of material transactions on costs, quality, access, health equity, and competition. The FY27 Executive Budget requires annual reporting to the DOH for the five years following a material transaction. These reports must include metrics that allow the DOH to assess the transaction's impact on costs, quality, access, health equity, and competition.^[21] Research supports that consolidation leads to higher prices, worsening the health care affordability crisis.^[22] HCFANY strongly supports the initiative to track the impact of material transactions on the broader health care system, as is outlined in the FY27 Executive Budget. However, the Legislature should consider requiring the DOH to publicly post an annual summary of its findings, allowing consumers and advocates to understand the impact of health care transactions on costs, quality, access, health equity, and competition. In addition to lacking a public summary, this annual reporting does not include a penalty for material transactions that are detrimental to cost, quality, access, health equity, and/or competition. To address this, the Legislature may consider granting conditional approval to transactions during this tracking period, which only becomes finalized after being monitored for five years without incident.

Expanding the statements required for written notices of health care transactions. The FY27 Executive Budget requires two new statements to be included in the written notice that health care entities must submit to the DOH. These statements require disclosure of whether any party to the transaction has closed operations, is in the process of closing operations, or has substantially reduced services in the past three years.^[23] Another statement requires disclosure of whether real estate-related payments, including sale-leaseback agreements, are part of the proposed transaction.^[24] HCFANY supports both of these additions.

Utilizing a Cost and Market Impact Review (CMIR) to assess transactions. The FY27 Executive Budget includes language allowing the DOH, at its discretion, to review proposed material transactions with a CMIR.^[25] HCFANY supports the utilization of CMIR; however, the Legislature should consider expanding this language to require public posting of related documents, such as notices and preliminary and final reports. This change mirrors transparency requirements in other states: Connecticut’s Office of Health Strategy publicly posts documentation of material change notices (MCN) requiring CMIR and OCHA posts a complete list of MCNs on its website.^[26] Relatedly, the FY27 Executive Budget authorizes the DOH to postpone a transaction closing by up to 180 days after its preliminary review to conduct a CMIR.^[27] HCFANY supports this provision.

Currently, transactions that undergo the DOH's Certificate of Need (CON) process do not count as “material” and would not be subject to the changes outlined in Part H.^[28] HCFANY urges the Legislature to change this precedent so that transactions related to sites such as hospitals and nursing homes are also reviewed and, if appropriate, subject to CMIR. For example, in Connecticut, review for CMIR is woven into the CON application process.^[29] In California, OCHA’s first transaction review requiring CMIR involved a skilled nursing facility.^[30]

The Legislature should expand the language in the FY27 Executive Budget to ensure that the same affordability criteria outlined in Part H also apply to transactions requiring CON applications.

III. Funding Navigators, Consumer Assistance Programs, and Increasing Article 6 Funding.

HCFANY urges the Legislature to support consumer assistance programs by increasing funding for Navigators and Community Health Advocates. The devastating cuts to federal health programs make investing in Navigators and Consumer Assistance Programs more important than ever.

Increasing Funding for Health Insurance Enrollment Navigators.

The Navigator program has been instrumental in ensuring New Yorkers enroll, keep, and use their health insurance. Navigators provide unbiased, personalized assistance year-round in more than 40 languages.^[31] The Navigator program is predominantly run through trusted local community-based organizations (CBOs) that provide culturally and linguistically competent services.^[32] Roughly 70 percent of Marketplace enrollees utilize in-person assistance, and over 400,000 people currently enrolled in coverage use NYSOH Navigators.

HCFANY is grateful that the Governor’s budget includes $28.3 million for Navigators in FY27. Given the uncertainty surrounding the future of federal health care programs, HCFANY urges the Legislature to increase funding for the Navigator program. The 2023-24 budget included a $300,000 one-year cost-of-living increase. But the Navigator program has received only a single-year cost-of-living adjustment since 2013. Under this essentially flat funding scenario, the Navigator programs have had to lose staff to keep up with inflation. It is more important than ever to build infrastructure in the Navigator program. The Legislature should increase Navigator funding to $38 million to reflect over ten years without appropriate cost-ofliving increases.

In addition, the Legislature should consider adopting a proven strategy of funding CBOs to conduct outreach in difficult-to-reach communities to maintain insurance enrollment in the face of federal policy changes. In 2023-2024, a group of philanthropies joined together to fund The Keep New York Covered program, which provided dedicated outreach funding to Statecertified enrollment groups to get the word out about new federal policies requiring consumers to recertify their coverage. At a cost of just $30 per enrollment, 36 community-based assisters were able to generate a 3,850 percent return on investment, enrolling 85,132 New Yorkers into coverage by conducting 63 million outreach engagements through social media, in-person presentations, mailings, and the like.^[33]

HCFANY urges the Legislature to fund the Navigator program at $38 million to guarantee continued high-quality enrollment services. New York should also allocate $5 million in grants to CBOs to conduct outreach in underserved communities.

Maintain funding for Community Health Advocates (CHA).

The CHA program helps people with health insurance access in-network care, resolve billing issues, avoid medical debt, appeal coverage denials, and address other barriers to obtaining affordable medical care. Since 2010, CHA has assisted more than 564,000 New York clients through a diverse network of CBOs serving each of the 62 counties in New York State. Altogether, the CHA network has helped consumers save nearly $252 million in health care costs. In FY24-25, CHA saved consumers $25 million, yielding a 407% return on investment.

CHA assists consumers through a toll-free helpline and a network of 24 CBOs and small business serving groups, operating in all New York counties. CHA’s helpline number is listed on commercial health insurance “Explanations of Benefits” and claim denial notices; Medicaid Managed Care denial notices (as of 2022); and the NYS Hospital Financial Assistance uniform application (as of 2024). As a result, call volume has surged by 172 percent.

Last year, the Governor and Legislature made a critical investment in CHA by increasing funding from $5 million to $7.2 million. This investment strengthened CHA’s capacity at a pivotal moment, as New York struggles to mitigate the damage caused by federal cuts under H.R. 1, which will cause an estimated 1.7 million New Yorkers to lose their health coverage. H.R. 1 eliminates federal funding and eligibility for coverage for hundreds of thousands of lawfully present immigrant New Yorkers, as well as imposes new administrative burdens for millions of others to retain their coverage. In addition, many more will no longer be able to afford coverage through the NYSOH Marketplace.

HCFANY is grateful that the Governor’s budget includes $5.5 million for CHA in FY26- 27 and urges the Legislature to allocate an additional $1.7 million to maintain CHA’s funding at $7.2 million.

Funding Community Health Access to Addiction and Mental Healthcare Project (CHAMP).

CHAMP provides specialized post-enrollment services for people seeking substance use disorder or mental health treatment. Its funding should be maintained at $3 million, as it is in the Executive Budget.

Increase Article 6 Funding in New York City.

HCFANY strongly supports increasing Article 6 funding for New York City and restoring parity in reimbursement rates and urges the Legislature to include this increase in their one-house budget proposals.

New York City is the only locality in the state that is reimbursed at a lower rate for core public health services under Article 6, receiving just 20 percent for spending above its base grant compared to 36 percent for all other local health departments.

This inequitable policy has cost the City up to $90 million each year and unfairly shifts the burden of funding essential public health programs onto local taxpayers. Article 6 supports critical services such as maternal and child health, communicable disease prevention, and chronic disease management — programs that are especially vital in a large, diverse city with significant health needs. At a time of growing public health challenges and federal funding cuts, the state should correct this inequity by increasing Article 6 funding for New York City.

Thank you again for providing this opportunity to submit testimony and for your consideration of our comments. We stand ready to work with the Legislature to advance our recommendations. Please contact Mia Wagner (mwagner@cssny.org) with any questions.

Notes

1. Draft Submission to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS): New York State’s Request to Terminate the Section 1332 State Innovation Waiver and Return to the Basic Health Program. 2025.

2. Financial Plan, NYS FY27 Executive Budget. Page 17.

3. FY27 Executive Budget, HMH Article VII, Part M, Sections 13, 14, and 15.

4. 1115 Waiver, New York Medicaid Redesign Team.

5. FY27 Executive Budget, HMH Article VII, Part M, Section 3.

6. FY27 Executive Budget, HMH Article VII, Part M, Section 13.

7. Kirzinger, Ashley et al. “KFF Health Tracking Poll: Prior Authorizations Rank as Public’s Biggest Burden When Getting Health Care.” KFF, February 2026.

8. FY27 Executive Budget, TED Article VII, Part HH, Subpart A.

9. FY27 Executive Budget, TED Article VII, Part HH, Subpart B.

10. FY27 Executive Budget, TED Article VII, Part HH, Subpart C.

11. Sisko, A. et al. (2019), National Health Expenditure Projections, 2018–27: Economic And Demographic Trends Drive Spending And Enrollment Growth, Health Affairs.

12. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (n.d.). Health Expenditures by State of Residence: Summary Tables. (supra, n.1.).

13. Jamalabadi, S., Winter, V., & Schreyögg, J. (2020). A Systematic Review of the Association Between Hospital Cost/Price and the Quality of Care. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 18(5), 625–639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-020-00577-6.; Beauvais, B., Gilson, G., Schwab, S., Jaccaud, B., Pearce, T., & Holmes, T. (2020). Overpriced? Are Hospital Prices Associated with the Quality of Care? Healthcare (Basel), 8(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare8020135.

14. Murray, Roslyn et al. “Estimating Savings from the Fair Pricing Act and Commercial Site-Neutral Payments in New York State.” Center for Advancing Health Policy Through Research, Brown University School of Public Health. February 2025.

15. Health Care Cost Institute. September 2025. https://healthcostinstitute.org/all-hcci-reports/4-of-health-spendinggoes-to-primary-care/.

16. “Investing in Primary Care: A State-Level Analysis,” Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative, July 2019, 8

17. “Primary Care Legislative Trends 2023,” Primary Care Development Corporation, January 2024.

18. Provider Access and Availability Survey Results, New York State of Health. May 2025.

19. Healthcare Affordability Snapshot, Healthcare Value Hub.

20. Empowering New York Consumers in an Era of Hospital Consolidation. May 2018.

21. FY27 Executive Budget, Part H, Section 3 (b).

23. FY27 Executive Budget, HMH Article VII, Part H, Section 1 (g).

24. FY27 Executive Budget, HMH Article VII, Part H, Section 1 (h).

25. FY27 Executive Budget, HMH Article VII, Part H, Section 4 (a).

26. California Department of Healthcare Access and Information, “OHCA Background & Resources” https://hcai.ca.gov/affordability/ohca/ohca-background-resources/. California Department of Healthcare Access and Information “Material Change Transaction Notices (MCN) and Cost and Market Impact Review (CMIR)” https://hcai.ca.gov/affordability/ohca/assess-market-consolidation/material-change-transaction-notices-mcn-andcost-and-market-impact-review-cmir/. CT Office of Health Strategy, “Cost and Market Impact Review” https://portal.ct.gov/ohs/health-systems-planning/cost-and-market-impact-review/cost-and-market-impactreview?language=en_US.

27. FY27 Executive Budget, HMH Article VII, Part H, Section 4 (b).

28. New York State DOH, “Public Health Law Article 45-A, Material Transactions Frequently Asked Questions”.

29. CT Office of Health Strategy, “General Process for Cost and Market Impact Review”.

30. California Department of Healthcare Access and Information, “Covenant Care California, Inc. Cost and Market Impact Review”.

31. New York State of Health Marketplace, “Assistors Page”.

32. K. Pollitz, et. al, “Consumer Assistance in health Insurance: Evidence of Impact and Unmet Need,” KFF. August 2020.

33. M. Wagner, M. Flynn, E. Benjamin, S. Kunkel, “We’ll Keep You Covered: How Funding Community-Based Outreach Reduces Coverage Losses in the Face of Federal Policy Changes,” August 2025.

Across the country, and acutely in Democratic-led states like New York, ICE and Border Patrol officers have been routinely stopping, questioning, and detaining U.S. citizens and lawfully present residents. These are not isolated mistakes but part of a pattern of unconstitutional policing rooted in racial profiling, intimidation, and unchecked power. And now, the consequences have turned fatal.

We all know what happened last month: Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti were killed by federal immigration officers in Minneapolis in separate incidents that can also be described as a gross federal misconduct. When ICE violates court orders nearly 100 times in a single month, as a federal judge reported, and carries out militarized raids that terrorize residents, states must respond.

Last Friday, Governor Kathy Hochul introduced legislation that would bar ICE from co-opting state and local law enforcement in civil immigration enforcement. Her action follows new measures in her State of the State address to protect New Yorkers’ constitutional rights and hold federal agents accountable. When federal agents abuse their authority, trample constitutional rights, and act aggressively, they erode trust between communities and all law enforcement.

That is why the New York for All Act matters so profoundly.

The act (S2235A/A3506) would prohibit state and local agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement in ways that enable abuses—such as sharing personal data, assisting in warrantless detentions, or participating in operations that target people based on race, language, or perceived immigration status. At its core, the New York for All Act reinforces a simple truth: public safety does not come from violating people’s rights.

By advancing the New York for All Act, Majority Leader Stewart-Cousins is asserting that New Yorkers will not be conscripted into the federal government’s civil rights violations. She is also upholding a long-standing New York value: the belief that our diversity is a point of pride, not suspicion. The bill ensures that residents can access schools, hospitals, courts, and public services without fear of being profiled, detained, or funneled into a deportation pipeline.

But protecting immigrant communities also means ensuring access to justice. As ICE arrests rise and immigration court backlogs grow, New York must also invest in legal services and guarantee the right to counsel by passing the Access to Representation Act (A270/S141) and the BUILD Act (A2689/S4538). Legal representation dramatically improves a person’s chances of obtaining a favorable outcome in immigration court. Without an attorney, families are far more likely to be separated, By guaranteeing counsel to those who cannot afford it and strengthening the legal services system for the long term, New York can help immigrant New Yorkers remain in their communities and contribute to the state’s future.

In this moment—when masked federal officers stop people without warrants, profiling them because they speak Spanish or look “foreign”—New York must send a resounding message: this is not who we are, and we will not be complicit.

The New York for All Act, Access to Representation Act, and BUILD Act are not just good policy; they represent moral leadership. And it is exactly what this moment demands.

A recent lawsuit by the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), the NAACP New York State Conference, and The Bronx Defenders lays out the case starkly: NYPD vehicle searches have surged, overwhelmingly target drivers of color, and rarely turn up guns. The complaint calls it what millions of New Yorkers will recognize from lived experience –“stop-and-frisk on wheels.” 

The numbers are eye-opening. NYPD conducted 28,416 vehicle searches in 2024, an 83 percent increase from 2023; more than 84 percent of all searches from 2022 through September 2025 were of Black or Latino drivers, while white motorists accounted for less than four percent. Search rates are higher across all 78 precincts for Black and Latino drivers. Critically, these searches “almost never” recover a weapon according to the lawsuit.

Those car stops sit atop a broader resurgence of pedestrian stops. The court-appointed monitor in Floyd v. City of New York has repeatedly found persistent racial disparities and a troubling share of stops and frisks that lack constitutional footing. In April 2024, the monitor documented disparities across commands and post-stop outcomes; later reports highlighted under-reporting of stops and elevated rates of unlawful frisks and searches—particularly by specialized gun-suppression units. 

If this all sounds familiar, it is. The monitor’s special reviews of Neighborhood Safety Teams (NSTs)—units championed to take guns off the street—found about a quarter of their stops unlawful and 97 percent of the people they stopped to be Black or Latino. In a sample of 230 car stops, NSTs recovered a weapon twice. Those findings are not outliers; subsequent monitor snapshots and civil-rights groups’ summaries have underscored rising unconstitutional stops and chronic under-reporting citywide. 

And what’s the NYPD’s justification for a policy that routinely violates the constitutional rights of Black and Latino motorists? They claim they go where the crime is. But a volume defense is not a constitutional defense. The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments do not relax in zip codes with higher 911 call volumes. And there’s something else. This is not about random vehicle stops, according to Donna Lieberman, longtime executive director of the NYCLU. Rather, it’s about what happens to people after they are stopped. 

“Police officers are not supposed to search the cars people are in unless they have suspicion that they are doing some harm, violence or using a weapon,” Lieberman said. “And when you don’t turn up a weapon in virtually any of the cases, it ceases to be a tool to get guns off the street. So, it’s not about crime, getting guns off the street or reducing violence. It’s about racial profiling.”

Former Mayor Eric Adams tolerated this revival of aggressive tactics as the necessary price of driving down shootings. But independent watchdogs have not found strong evidence that the spike in stops is what’s moving safety metrics; they have found substantial evidence of illegality and disparity.  For example, ProPublica’s coverage of the federal monitor’s 2025 report on the NYPD’s Community Response Team labeled the conduct “troubling” and “unconstitutional.” The NYCLU has likewise shown that as pedestrian stops fell dramatically after Floyd, violent crime didn’t spike, undercutting the core claim that mass stopping is essential to safety. 

Meanwhile, police accountability is a myth. In September 2024, a court-ordered 500-page disciplinary review concluded officers who engage in unconstitutional stops and frisks “rarely, if ever” face discipline—even when the Civilian Complaint Review Board substantiates misconduct. 

Data-driven gun violence prevention doesn’t look like this. If your anti-gun strategy requires blanket traffic enforcement in minority neighborhoods, produces massive racial disparities and almost no firearm recoveries from those vehicle searches, it’s not a strategy—it’s a tax on dignity and equal protection. Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch is the architect of the use of data collection in police practices and policies at the NYPD. We can only hope that the Commissioner is as concerned by the allegations in this lawsuit as we are and makes changes.  

A press release on the commissioner’s ‘State of the Department’ address last week announced that police officers will undergo updated “in-service training” covering a range of topics including constitutional policing. That’s good. Maybe we should take a look at the training to make sure officers have the same understanding of what is constitutional as we do. 

Finally, Mayor Mamdani must hold the NYPD accountable. He knows that when bad actors in the NYPD get away with abusive behavior and misconduct, it is not good for lion share of police officers who act with integrity, professionalism and a genuine commitment to public safety. More importantly, it hurts the community’s faith in policing. 

Gun violence is real and it demands effective action. But turning Black and brown motorists into suspects first and citizens second is neither effective nor lawful. The question now is not whether the mayor can rein in racial profiling and make accountability real; it’s whether he will.

David R. Jones, Esq., is President and CEO of the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), the leading voice on behalf of low-income New Yorkers for more than 175 years. The views expressed in this column are solely those of the writer. The Urban Agenda is available on CSS’s website: www.cssny.org.

Across the country, and acutely in Democratic-led states like New York, ICE and Border Patrol officers have been routinely stopping, questioning, and detaining U.S. citizens and lawfully present residents. These are not isolated mistakes but part of a pattern of unconstitutional policing rooted in racial profiling, intimidation, and unchecked power. And now, the consequences have turned fatal.

We all know what happened last month: Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti were killed by federal immigration officers in Minneapolis, in separate incidents less than three weeks apart. According to multiple reports, Good was shot four times, including in the head, on January 7, 2026, after ICE officers approached her car; bystander video contradicts federal claims that she weaponized her vehicle. Her death has been officially ruled a homicide.

Then, on January 24, Pretti, an ICU nurse, was shot multiple times during what federal officials claimed was an armed confrontation. However, video verified by The New York Times and described in contemporaneous reporting shows Pretti standing among protesters with both hands visible—holding only a phone—before agents peppersprayed the crowd, tackled him to the ground, and opened fire. These killings were so egregious that federal prosecutors in Minnesota have threatened mass resignation over what they describe as illegal ICE operations and a Justice Department smear campaign designed to justify the deaths.

This is not simply federal overreach—this is federal misconduct. When ICE violates court orders nearly 100 times in a single month, as a federal judge reported, and carries out “militarized raids” that terrorize residents, the states must respond.

Last Friday, Governor Kathy Hochul introduced legislation that would effectively bar ICE from co-opting state and local law enforcement in civil immigration enforcement. The governor’s action – which follows new measures she unveiled in her annual `State of the State’ address to protect the constitutional rights of New Yorkers from federal overreach and hold federal agents accountable for unconstitutional action — is significant because across the nation, ICE agents are using rough-handed search and seizure methods on citizens. And here’s the point: when federal agents abuse their authority, act aggressively and trample constitutional rights it erodes trust between communities and all law enforcement.

That is why the New York for All Act matters so profoundly.

The act (S2235A/A3506) would prohibit state and local agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement in ways that enable abuses—such as turning over personal data, assisting in warrantless detentions, or participating in ICE operations that target people based on race, language, or perceived immigration status. At its core, the New York
for All Act reinforces a simple truth: public safety does not come from violating people’s rights.

The bill also recognizes a reality that Minneapolis tragically illuminated: when federal officers operate with impunity, every resident—regardless of citizenship—is at risk. The killings of Good and Pretti were not just violations of immigration norms but of the most fundamental American principles: due process, equal protection, and government accountability.

Communities across the nation are not accepting these abuses. Anti-ICE demonstrations have erupted nationwide, including student walkouts and mass protests in New York City. New York, however, can do more than protest. It can legislate.

By advancing the New York for All Act, Majority Leader Stewart-Cousins is asserting that New Yorkers will not be conscripted into the federal government’s civil rights violations. She is also upholding a long-standing New York value: the belief that our diversity is a point of pride, not suspicion. The bill ensures that residents can access schools, hospitals, courts, and public services without fear of being profiled, detained, or funneled into a deportation pipeline simply because an ICE officer decided that their skin color or accent made them a “target.”

The killings of Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti are now part of our national conscience. Their names belong in the same conversation as past victims of abusive government force. But they also serve as a warning: if states do not draw clear boundaries, federal agencies that violate their mission will keep pushing until tragedy becomes routine.

And in this moment—when masked federal officers are stopping people on streets and at workplaces without warrants, profiling them because they speak Spanish, work lowwage jobs, or simply look “foreign”—New York must send a resounding message: This is not who we are. And we will not be complicit.

The New York for All Act is not just good policy; it is moral leadership. And it is exactly what this moment demands.

Rising hospital prices are driving the state's healthcare affordability crisis, with hospital spending representing more than one third of all health care expenditures in New York. But a modest legislative reform before state policymakers can significantly improve health care affordability by curbing high health care prices for a limited set of routine outpatient services, benefiting patients, unions and employers.

 A new Community Service Society of New York (CSS) brief, How the Fair Pricing Act’s Site Neutral Policy Boosts Health Care Affordability by Ensuring Savings will be Passed Through to Patients and Payers, explains how the state's existing insurance regulatory infrastructure prevents insurance carriers from retaining savings achieved through the Fair Pricing Act (S705/Krueger -A2140/Jackson) and how these savings would be passed on to patients, employers, and other payers.

 Specifically, the legislation proposes to establish site neutral policies for a modest set of outpatient procedures—that are easily performed in doctor’s offices and hospital clinics.  The Act would cap prices at 150 percent of the Medicare reimbursement rate regardless of where they are performed. This would stem the phenomenon of hospital-affiliated providers and clinics from charging excessive rates for simple services simply because they performed in a hospital-affiliated setting.  Such services include annual physical exams, vaccines, drug infusions, mammograms, lab tests, diagnostic imaging and other minor procedures.  The Act targets site-specific payment differences which are a key driver of rising health care prices.

 A February 2025 report by Brown University’s School of Public Health found that the Fair Pricing Act would result in more than $1 billion in health care savings and directly reduce out-of-pocket costs for New York patients by $213 million a year.

 "The affordability of healthcare shouldn’t depend on the building it’s delivered in. All New Yorkers should be able to receive routine medical care in a doctor's office without paying exorbitant hospital prices,” said State Senator Liz Krueger, primary sponsor of S705. “The Fair Pricing Act will help remedy the illogical and unfair hospital pricing system we currently have. New Yorkers are feeling more strapped than ever, and this bill is the kind of common-sense financial relief that they are demanding from Albany."

 “Healthcare is a basic right, not a luxury. Too many families are forced to choose between care and financial stability because of inflated hospital costs. The Fair Pricing Act ensures that routine care is accessible and affordable for all New Yorkers,” said State Assemblymember Chantel Jackson, primary sponsor of A2140. “This legislation will ease the burden on everyday families and empower communities to prioritize health over debt. It holds hospitals accountable, promotes transparency, and sends a clear message: New Yorkers deserve fairness in the healthcare system. Together, we are building a system that values people over profits and puts families first.”

 “Albany lawmakers have an opportunity to regulate hospital prices and put the brakes on the rapid growth of health care spending by enacting the Fair Pricing Act,” said David R. Jones, CSS President and CEO. “They should do it because we know higher hospital prices are not associated with increased quality of care. It’s time for New York to join other states that have already implemented policies to address high hospital costs.”

 "We cannot let high hospital prices continue to threaten healthcare affordability for working class New Yorkers. Our members count on being able to go to their local doctor’s office to take their kid for a flu shot, get an MRI for a balky knee or an IV bag for dehydration and they shouldn’t have to pay inflated prices just because a big hospital took over that facility,” said Manny Pastreich, President of 32BJ SEIU. “This report shows that a Fair Pricing policy makes healthcare fairer for all New Yorkers. 32BJ SEIU is proud to work with partners in the Coalition for Affordable Hospitals fighting for regular New Yorkers to access and afford quality healthcare."

“Patients and payers face sharp increases in health care spending when routine care shifts from doctors’ offices to higher-priced hospital-affiliated settings,” said Alison Goldberg, CSS Health Policy Analyst and co-author of the CSS brief. “The Fair Pricing Act would curb these high prices and generate significant savings for New Yorkers, no matter where they receive care.”

"The Fair Pricing Act provides an opportunity for New York legislators to make health care more affordable for patients, regardless of whether they have health insurance," said Mia Wagner, CSS Director of Health Policy and co-author of the CSS brief. "State action to control health care prices is especially critical following devastating federal cuts to health care that will leave over a million New Yorkers uninsured."

The CSS brief was co-authored by CSS Health Policy Analyst Alison Goldberg, CSS Director of Health Policy Mia Wagner, and CSS Vice President of Health Initiatives Elisabeth Benjamin. 

###

 The Community Service Society of New York (CSS) has worked with and for New Yorkers since 1843 to promote economic opportunity and champion an equitable city and state. We power change through a strategic combination of research, services, and advocacy to make New York more livable for people facing economic insecurity. By expanding access to health care, affordable housing, employment opportunities, debt assistance, and more, we make a tangible difference in the lives of millions. Join us at www.cssny.org. 

In this interview, Sherrie reflects on what drew her to CSS, how strategic fundraising can help advance economic justice, and the importance of listening as a leadership practice. She also shares her vision for deepening partnerships with donors and supporters, and how philanthropy can serve as a catalyst for meaningful, long-term impact across New York.
 

Q: Can you tell us a bit about your background, and what drew you to CSS and this role?

A: I’m an adopted New Yorker — I came here for graduate school and have lived and worked in the city for more than 20 years. New York has profoundly shaped my worldview and my belief in the power of community. Throughout my career, I’ve been motivated by the idea that philanthropy can create real opportunity when it’s aligned with people and communities’ best interests. That belief led me to fundraising work. CSS embodies those values: a deep commitment to New Yorkers and a unique path to create a positive impact at a critical moment. This role offers a chance to help strengthen the city’s future when it’s needed most.
 

Q: What excites you most about joining CSS as the VP of Development?

A: This is an urgent time for New York with real potential to scale impact across the city and state in meaningful, tangible ways. Strategic philanthropy can play a catalytic role in expanding access and economic security across communities. I’m excited to bring my experience in donor engagement, securing transformational gifts, and building strong fundraising teams to help CSS grow its capacity and deepen its long-term impact for all New Yorkers.
 

Q: What motivates you personally to work toward economic justice?

A: I’ve seen firsthand how timely support can change the trajectory of a person’s life. What motivates me is helping connect resources to people who haven’t always had access. At its best, philanthropy supports individuals and families as they work toward stability, dignity, and self-determination. CSS’s mission aligns closely with that belief, ensuring New Yorkers have the tools and support they need to succeed and thrive.
 

Q: What opportunities do you see to deepen relationships with donors and supporters at CSS? 

A: With more than 180 years of service to New York, CSS is uniquely positioned to invite donors into a shared vision for the city’s future. There’s tremendous potential to engage supporters not just as funders, but as partners and collaborators in expanding opportunity for New Yorkers. By clearly connecting philanthropy to tangible outcomes, whether access to legal services, healthcare, or education, we can build lasting relationships grounded in shared values and trust. That kind of engagement leads to meaningful, sustained impact.
 

Q: What’s a lesson you’ve learned during your fundraising career that continues to shape how you lead?

A: Listening is so much more powerful than speaking first. The most effective strategies and strongest partnerships emerge when we take the time to understand what motivates people and what they truly need. Whether working with donors, leading teams, or engaging with stakeholders, thoughtful listening builds trust and helps identify where we can make the greatest difference.
 

Q: What would you like CSS supporters to know about how their contributions make a difference behind the scenes?

A: Every contribution to CSS supports real, life-changing work — from expanding access to healthcare, reducing crippling educational debt, or promoting economic stability. Supporters help provide flexible resources and infrastructure that allows CSS to respond quickly, strengthen partnerships, and sustain programs that support individuals, families, and communities across New York. I’m deeply committed to ensuring supporters understand the impact of their giving and how it contributes to a more resilient, inclusive city.
 

Q: What does it mean to you to build a more equitable New York?

A: It means ensuring all New Yorkers have access to the resources they need to thrive — regardless of the barriers they face. Equity is about creating fair pathways to education, healthcare, legal support, and economic opportunity by listening to communities and responding to their strengths and priorities. When we invest in people, we strengthen the city as a whole, and CSS is uniquely positioned to lead that work.
 

Q: When you’re not working, what’s your favorite way to unwind or recharge?

A: I am constantly organizing some activity or some social event either with my family or friends. Most of my time outside work revolves around my kids sports — whether it’s driving them to their next practice or game, or cheering from the sidelines, I love to be involved in their activities.  I also love traveling with my family — we try to go to a new destination together every year. And we are always active, whether that’s hiking or spending time at the shore. I also make time to run, swim, and practice yoga.

Child care is the Mount Everest of economic policy challenges. It’s a financial burden that cuts across all races, neighborhoods and income brackets.  Day care is unaffordable for nearly everyone.  It is without doubt the most worthy of Mamdani’s attention in the early days of his administration. 

Mamdani and Governor Kathy Hochul deserve credit for announcing an initiative to provide free child care for 2-year-olds in New York City, and strengthen early childhood education.  It is the first step, they said, toward universal free child care statewide for children ages six weeks to five years old.  They want to join New Mexico, which was the first state to offer all families free universal childcare.

Mamdani has made child care a cornerstone of his affordability push.  Several of his appointees and top campaign aides worked in early childhood education or helped secure funding for former Mayor Bill de Blasio’s universal prekindergarten program. They know universal child care will take time and have no illusions about the challenges ahead.

Governor Hochul deserves credit for committing to work with the new mayor on such a difficult issue ahead of what may be a tough reelection run next year.  She has already launched a multi-year effort to rebuild the state’s child-care infrastructure decimated by the COVID pandemic.  Universal child care could cost as much as $15 billion, which requires the solid backing of the governor as well as the state legislature. 

Let’s acknowledge the obvious: This will not be easy.  The program Mamdani envisions faces significant financial hurdles.  How to pay for it remains an open question.   In New York City alone, universal child care could cost as much as $6 billion.  Then there are logistical issues, like seats for students with disabilities and a mismatch between child care supply and demand across neighborhoods.

Finding a solution for New York, however difficult, is worth the risk. The average child-care expense for families in the city is around $26,000 for infants and toddlers, according to the Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York.   That’s fourfold the seven percent of household income that the federal government deems affordable.  Unfortunately, child-care costs continue to rise faster than overall inflation in most U.S. states.  

In New York and 40 other states, the average annual price of center-based infant care costs more than in-state, four-year university tuition.  In New York City, clearly, those prices mean child care is out of reach for low-income families, immigrants and essential workers.   

We need government to support the care and education of young children, for the good of families and all the societal advantages that flow from stable homes and supportive environments for children and working parents.  It improves the parents’ ability to find meaningful work and benefits care providers, who overwhelmingly tend to be Black women.  The absence of child care also undercuts hard-fought gains for women in the workplace.

The strategies embraced nationally to address the child-care crisis include federal tax credits to offset costs, boosting wages to attract and retain child-care workers, encouraging businesses to provide on-site day care, and grants that help licensed providers cover rent, utilities and operating costs to keep their doors open.  Still others call for new federal child-care and education savings accounts.

President Donald Trump calls affordability “a fake word.”  But economic data and public polls show that Americans are struggling:  Income is barely keeping up with persistent inflation, as day-to-day basics are getting more expensive. Food, transportation and housing are increasing, and child-care and elder-care costs have skyrocketed. 

The affordability crisis turned into a political calamity for former Mayor Eric Adams, after he cut funding from the city’s popular preschool program. In his final year in office, Adams was forced to reallocate $167 million to permanent early childhood funding and $10 million for a universal child care pilot program after pushback from city lawmakers and parents.  Mamdani should extend the $10 million pilot, which offers free child care to parents in high-need areas with children up to age two.

Taking on child care in such a conspicuous way says a lot about the type of mayor Mamdani intends to become.  Elected leaders repeatedly come face-to-face again and again with the same choice: do the right thing or do the expedient thing for the right reasons. 

The mayor’s campaign promises inspired many, and he appears to not be cynically retreating from his child care ambitions in the face of unfavorable budget math.  To do otherwise so early in his term would be hollow and damaging.

Now is the right time for serious political consideration of new funding and delivery models for child care.

A new report from the Community Service Society (CSS) makes this clear. Drawing on a statewide survey of New Yorkers, and reflecting trends seen nationwide, the report finds that more than a third of moderate-income residents are relying, at higher rates than both lower- and higher- income groups, on short-term debt like BNPL just to cover basic expenses. This suggests a widening policy gap: moderate-income households are excluded from most safety-net programs yet are still unable to meet basic expenses without taking on debt.

National data tell a similar story: lower income households, people without emergency savings, and those with constrained access to traditional credit are far more likely to turn to BNPL.

And the racial dimensions cannot be ignored. Research shows that Black and Hispanic consumers, particularly Black and Hispanic women, are more likely to use BNPL than their white counterparts.

What makes BNPL uniquely troubling is not that people use it, but that people increasingly use it for groceries and other basic needs. When financing your weekly food bill becomes routine, we should stop talking about consumer choice and start talking about systemic failure.

The CSS report’s findings about short-term debt mirror broader national patterns of consumer stress. Even Federal Reserve research shows that many people who use BNPL do so because they simply can’t afford the purchase any other way.

This trend is tied to decades of stagnating wages, rising costs, and shrinking safety nets. This is not about irresponsible spending. It is about survival in a city and state where the cost of living has far outpaced wages, particularly for low-income households and communities of color.

In neighborhoods across the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and beyond, families already stretched thin by rent increases, medical bills, and childcare costs are using BNPL to bridge gaps in cash flow. For many, it feels like the only option left when paychecks don’t stretch far enough.

When so much of a household’s income is consumed by these fixed costs, even small, unexpected expenses like a winter coat or prescription can push families into borrowing.

New York is leading the way in regulating Buy Now, Pay Later with its 2025 BNPL Act, which creates the nation’s first state licensing and oversight system for BNPL providers, giving the Department of Financial Services authority to regulate these products and curb hidden costs and over-borrowing by requiring clearer disclosures, consumer protections, and limits on fees and practices.

But if we want fewer New Yorkers relying on Buy Now, Pay Later to get by, we must tackle the root causes of financial precarity. Our elected officials in Albany and New York City must redouble their efforts to address people’s financial stress by investing in truly affordable housing and strengthening tenant protections, reducing out-of-pocket healthcare, and making education affordable, from early childhood programs to college and workforce training.

Real economic security means that no one has to buy now and pay later just to live today. Let’s build an economy where working New Yorkers can thrive without debt looming over every purchase.